Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Gas Light and Coke Company (No. 2) Bill,

York Gas Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

London County Council (Money) Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS AND ALLOWANCES.

Sir WILLIAM JENKINS: asked the Minister of Labour the cost of administration of transitional payments for the final 12 months of its administration by county and county borough authorities and the cost for the first 12 months of its administration by the Unemployment Assistance Board, and the costs separately on each for the county of Glamorgan?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): The total cost of administration of transitional payments in the 12 months ended 31st December, 1934, prior to the first appointed day, was about £3,500,000, including about £780,000 paid to public assistance authorities in respect of additional administrative expenditure incurred by them. In the ensuing 12 months, the total cost of administration of unemployment allowances was about £4,250,000 of which about £1,700,000 was incurred by the Unemployment Assistance Board, including the cost of ancillary services rendered to the board by Government Departments and accruing liability in respect of superannuation allowances, the greater part of the

balance being in respect of services rendered by the Ministry of Labour. Corresponding figures for the county of Glamorgan are not available, but the sum paid to public assistance authorities in respect of their additional administrative expenses under the transitional payments scheme in the 12 months ended 31st December, 1934, was about £25,500.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this means an increase of £1,500,000 in the cost of administration of unemployment allowances? Would it not be much better to abolish the means test?

Sir W. JENKINS: asked the Minister of Labour the cost of transitional payments, apart from administration, in respect of the 12 months prior to the first appointed day, 7th June, 1935; the cost in respect of the ensuing period of 12 months for transitional payments and unemployment allowances; and the costs separately for the county of Glamorgan?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The cost of transitional payments, apart from administration, in the 12 months ended 31st December, 1934, prior to the first appointed day, 7th January, 1935, was about £43,130,000, and the cost in the ensuing period of 12 months for transitional payments and unemployment allowances was about £42,600,000. Corresponding payments (excluding transitional payments made through associations) in the county of Glamorgan during the same periods were approximately £4,130,000 and £4,480,000 respectively.

STATISTICS (LINLITHGOWSHIRE).

Mr. MATHERS: asked the Minister of Labour the total amount paid out in unemployment benefit in Linlithgowshire during the year ended 1st May, 1936, or the nearest convenient date, and similar information for each of the preceding five years?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I am having the figures extracted, and will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.

Mr. MATHERS: asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed workers on the registers of the Employment Exchanges in Linlithgowshire on 1st May, 1936, or nearest convenient date, and what proportion of those registered


are in receipt of benefit; and comparable information for each of the preceding five years?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. MATHERS: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman, indicate now whether

Unemployed persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Linlithgowshire.


Date.
Total number of unemployed persons on registers.
Proportion with claims admitted for unemployment benefit.
Proportion with applications authorised for transitional payments or unemployment allowances.


27 April, 1936
…
4,235
53·9
26·9


15 April, 1935
…
4,353
47·6
28·4


23 April, 1934
…
4,599
45·3
33·6


24 April, 1933
…
5,114
43·4
35·9


25 April, 1932
…
5,406
41·5
36·0


27 April, 1931
…
4,139
88·8
—


The comparability of the figures for different years is affected by the introduction of the transitional payments scheme in November, 1931, and by legislation in 1934, relating to unemployment insurance.

TRAINING CENTRES (EX-ARMY MEN).

Miss WARD: asked the Minister of Labour whether there is any liaison between his Department and the War Office with a view to the giving of information as to training centres, etc., to men who have left the Army?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Under arrangements made between the Ministry and the War Office, men about to take their discharge from the Regular Army are registered in advance with the Employment Exchange nearest to their intended place of residence after discharge, so that they may receive every assistance in finding suitable employment. The facilities available under the Department's training and transference schemes are brought to their notice in all appropriate cases.

Miss WARD: In view of the fact that there are many ex-Army men who seem to have no contact whatever with the Ministry of Labour, would the hon. and gallant Gentleman inquire whether the arrangements indicated work satisfactorily?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: If the hon. Member has any specific cases where the practice that I have indicated

the figures show an upward or a downward tendency?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I should like the hon. Member, if he will, to see the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT; then he can put down a further question.

Following is the reply:

The following table gives the information desired:

is not being carried out, perhaps she will bring them to my notice.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: Is it not a fact that very complete facilities for training exist in the Army?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: A great deal of trouble, I believe, is taken, but questions on that matter should be put down to the Secretary of State for War.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Is it not a fact that, when these men leave the Army, they have not sufficient strength to walk to the Exchanges after living on margarine?

ADVANCES (WEEKLY DEDUCTIONS).

Mr. THURTLE: asked the Minister of Labour whether it meets with the approval of his Department that under the Unemployment Assistance Board regulations a special advance made to an unemployed man for the purchase of a pair of boots for one of his children should be recovered by means of weekly deductions from the amount of his allowance?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I understand that the decision as to the recovery of advances of this kind


depends on the circumstances of the particular case. It is a matter within the board's discretion and not subject to my right hon. Friend's approval. If the applicant is dissatisfied with the decision, he has the usual right of appeal to an appeal tribunal.

TRANSFERRED FAMILIES, RHONDDA VALLEY.

Mr. JOHN: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a number of families have been sent to London from the Rhondda Valley with a promise of work; that the cost of the removal of the furniture is borne by the Ministry, and when the families arrive in London no work is available and they are left stranded; and will be take the necessary steps to discontinue this practice and arrange for these families to be transferred back to the Rhondda Valley?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Assistance towards the removal of families from the depressed areas is given only at the request of the householder, and where he or some other member of the family has obtained employment in the new area. The arrangements are designed to prevent the occurrence of cases of the kind referred to in the question and I am not aware that such cases have arisen, but if the hon. Member will let me have particulars, I will have inquiries made.

Mr. JOHN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman, after receiving the necessary information and proof of the transfer of these families, and no work is available, undertake to transfer them back to their homes?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I will certainly undertake to look into the cases, but I should not like, in advance of the information, to give any further specific undertaking.

JUVENILES.

Mr. McENTEE: asked the Minister of Labour the number of juveniles unemployed between the ages of 14 to 16 and 16 to 18, and the number receiving instruction at the latest available date?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: At 25th May, 1936, there were 54,184 unemployed juveniles, aged 14 and 15 years, and 46,463 aged 16 and 17, on the registers of Employment Exchanges and Juvenile Employment Bureaux in Great

Britain. The number continuing to attend school is considerable and amounted on 23rd March, 1936, to 11,777. Of those who had left school the average daily attendance at junior instruction centres and classes during the week ended 20th May, 1936, was 29,988. The average daily attendance of unemployed juveniles during the month ended 26th April, 1936, at other educational institutions was 583.

Oral Answers to Questions — COST-OF-LIVING INDEX.

Mr. GUY: asked the Minister of Labour whether the recently appointed committee of inquiry into working-class budgets will be given power to investigate the item of expenditure incurred by workmen travelling from local authority housing schemes to their place of work?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The object of the inquiry in connection with which this committee has been appointed is to obtain information required for the purpose of a revision of the basis of the cost-of-living index number. For this purpose it will probably be necessary to obtain some information as to the average weekly amount spent by working-class families on travelling, and, in so far as such expenditure appears in the family budgets collected, it will be taken into consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOOT AND SHOE INDUSTRY (WORKING HOURS).

Mr. LYONS: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can make a statement with reference to the introduction of the system of a five-day working week in the boot and shoe industry; and whether he can state the number of undertakings in this trade in which it has been agreed that this shorter week should operate.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: No, Sir. The National Conference Agreement of January last between the representatives of the Incorporated Federated Associations of Boot and Shoe Manufacturers and the National Union of Boot and Shoe Operatives substitutes for the 48-hour working week one of 46 hours as from the first week in June, but does not indicate how the adjustment in working hours shall be made, and makes no mention of a five-day week.

Mr. LYONS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a number of industrial concerns in this trade in Leicester have adopted the shorter working week and is his Department in close touch, so that any difficulties, more superficial than real, can be overcome?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I understand that certain firms are considering the adoption of a five-day week but no actual details are available. My Department naturally keeps in close touch with developments of this kind.

Mr. LYONS: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman be willing to receive representations and give the co-operation of his Department to any such firms as are now operating this system of a shorter working week?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Perhaps the hon. Member will communicate with me on that subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

SPEED LIMIT (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. McENTEE: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been summoned in the Metropolitan area for exceeding the 30 miles per hour limit during the past 12 months?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I presume that the hon. Member has in mind prosecutions for exceeding the speed limit in built-up areas, under Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934. The number of such prosecutions in the Metropolitan Police District during the 12 months ended 30th April, 1936, was 45,870.

TRAFFIC CONGESTION, CITY OF LONDON.

Rear-Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETER: asked the Home Secretary whether he will obtain a police report upon the traffic congestion in the area Eastcheap-Cannon Street-King William Street; and, if satisfied that there is danger to life and property, will he take power with other proper authorities to close to vehicular traffic the dangerous parts of the streets named until passage through them has been rendered safe?

Mr. LLOYD: My right hon. Friend has obtained a report from the Commissioner

of Police for the City of London to the effect that, while the volume of traffic converging at the intersection referred to is always heavy during business hours, such congestion is not more marked than in other busy thoroughfares in the City. In the Commissioner's view the risks are not greater than those which exist elsewhere, and the risk to pedestrians has been greatly diminished by the construction of a subway which was opened to the public on the 2nd December last. In these circumstances no action on the part of my right hon. Friend appears to be called for.

ROAD PASSENGER VEHICLES (SCOTLAND).

Mr. KIRKW00D: asked Minister of Transport how many licences have been issued for road passenger transport vehicles in Scotland; how many of these are operated by S.M.T., Limited, and by other companies; how many undertakings have been taken over by the S.M.T. Company, Limited; and what action he intends to take to prevent the establishment of a private monopoly in road transport services in Scotland out side the areas controlled by the four municipal undertakings of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, and Aberdeen?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): The number of public service vehicles licensed in Scotland on 31st March, 1936, was 5,259. I am obtaining the information asked for in the second and third parts of the question and will send it to the hon. Member. The considerations to which the commissioners must have regard when granting or refusing road service licences are set out in Section 72 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930.

MOTOR-CYCLISTS (LEARNERS).

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that cases are occurring where motor-cyclists who have a placard with the letter L on their machines carry a passenger as well; and will he take steps to stop this practice for learners?

Captain HUDSON: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is taking the necessary steps for making a regulation prohibiting this practice.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE CRIME.

Mr. SEXTON: asked the Home Secretary the numbers of juveniles between the ages of 14 years and 16 years who were convicted of crime in 1933, 1934 and 1935, respectively; and the numbers of such juveniles, respectively, on the registers of schools at the times of committing crimes and who had left schools at the times of committing crimes?

Mr. LLOYD: The number of persons between the ages of 14 and 16 found guilty of indictable offences in 1933 and 1934 were respectively 4,669 and 6,257. The number in 1935 is not yet available; it is estimated at 8,600. I am unable to say how many were still at school, but the proportion would be small.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

HOLLOWAY AND PENTONVILLE PRISON SITES.

Mr. DAY: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the housing shortage for the working classes in Central London, he would consider alleviating the difficulty of the housing authorities by allowing them to acquire the Holloway and Pentonville Prison sites, by removing these prisons further from the thickly populated area of London?

Mr. LLOYD: This question has been considered on various occasions in recent years, but in view of the difficulty of finding alternative accommodation for the large number of prisoners who would be displaced, it is not at present practicable to close either Holloway or Pentonville.

OVERCROWDING (SURVEY).

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: asked the Minister of Health whether the survey of overcrowded conditions, as defined by the Housing Act, 1935, has been completed; and whether he can give the House some indication of the number of houses which are overcrowded and the number of persons concerned?

Mr. T. SMITH: asked the Minister of Health what number of local authorities had submitted on 1st June reports as to the amount of overcrowding in their areas under the provisions of the Housing Act, 1935; how many houses were inspected by these authorities; how many were found to be overcrowded; and

will be state separately the corresponding figures for county boroughs alone?

Miss WARD: asked the Minister of Health whether he can make a statement on the position of the surveys required to be presented to the Ministry by 1st June under the Overcrowding Act of 1935?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): As the answer contains a number of figures I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Up to 1st June, 1,024 local authorities had submitted reports: the reports show that 6,431,464 houses were inspected, of which 247,884 were found to be overcrowded. These reports include 55 county boroughs in which 1,902,149 houses were inspected and 71,600 were found to be overcrowded. Up to 10th June reports have been received from 1,272 local authorities out of a total of 1,536. These reports show that 7,893,399 houses were inspected, and 296,738 were found to be overcrowded, an average of 3.8 per cent. The reports include 74 county boroughs, in which 2,588,020 houses were inspected and 99,581 were found to be unfit, an average of 3.8 per cent. The reports received include most of the large centres of population, and I do not think that the results are likely to be substantially affected when the outstanding reports which I have urged local authorities to submit forthwith are received.

CENTRAL HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Mr. JOEL: asked the Minister of Health the programme of the technical sub-committee of the Central Advisory Housing Committee who are now visiting different towns in the country to familiarise themselves with housing conditions?

Sir K. WOOD: The Central Purposes and Technical Sub-Committe of the Central Housing Advisory Committee have decided that some of their meetings should be made the occasions for visits to housing estates in various cities. Following this arrangement, the sub-committee have visited estates of the London County Council, and estates at Birmingham, Dudley, Liverpool and Manchester. I am not aware that any further visits are contemplated at present.

Sir J. NALL: Will the Committee visit vacant sites which have not been properly cleared?

Sir K. WOOD: Perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to send me some suggestions.

FINANCIAL PEOVISIONS ACT, 1933.

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities in England and Wales have given guarantees up to 31st March, 1936, under Section 2 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1933; and the total number of houses involved?

Sir K. WOOD: Up to 31st March, 1936, 54 local authorities in England and Wales had given guarantees under Section 2 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1933, in respect of 10,107 houses.

Mr. ADAMS: Can the Minister give the reason why this Act, introduced by his predecessor, has so lamentably failed to produce any considerable number of working-class houses?

Sir K. WOOD: I regret these figures, and I wish that more use was made of the Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPANISH SHIPS (WORKINGTON HARBOUR).

Captain PETER MACDONALD: asked the Home Secretary whether he can make any statement as to the activities of British Communists in connection with the disturbances on the Spanish iron-ore ships at Workington?

Mr. LLOYD: A report has been received from the Chief Constable of Cumberland and Westmorland who states that four of these ships have been moved from Workington Harbour under police escort and that there has been no disturbance of any kind. A member of the local Communist party visited one of these Spanish ships while it was in Workington Harbour but in view of the action taken by the police in conjunction with the harbour authorities, his efforts to prevent the removal of the ships were unsuccessful.

Oral Answers to Questions — FACTORIES (ACCIDENTS, YOUNG PERSONS).

Mr. CREECH JONES: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of

the increasing practice in the Midland, Eastern, and London areas of making the working hours of young persons the full legal limit; that the rate of accidents is much higher for juveniles than, for adults; and that the total number of accidents to young persons rose from 17,100 in 1933 to 21,767 in 1934; and will he introduce legislation without delay to reduce these excessive hours?

Mr. LLOYD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Lovat-Fraser) on 9th December last. As already announced, the Government propose to introduce a Consolidating and Amending Factories Bill next Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — LICENSED TRADE (COMPENSATION FUND).

Sir ROBERT YOUNG: asked the Home Secretary what would have been the exact amount that would have been paid into the fund for the extinction of redundant public houses during the years 1933, 1934, and 1935, had each licensing authority imposed the maximum levy in accordance with the Act of 1904?

Mr. LLOYD: I regret that the information asked for is not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — AMERICAN PUBLICATION, "TIME."

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the American magazine, "Time," has been censored several times recently in this country, either by having passages blacked out or cut out; and whether, when any papers are treated in a similar manner in future he will ensure that a notice is pasted on them indicating that the journal is not complete, so that purchasers will know they are purchasing mutilated copies?

Mr. LLOYD: I understand that before this American paper is offered for sale in this country, defamatory paragraphs which it contains have been cut out, presumably in an effort to avoid proceedings in our Courts which might provide a remedy to those who are libelled. Such excisions are not, of course, the action of His Majesty's Government or due to any official censorship, and the steps proposed in the question are not within my right hon. Friend's powers.

Mr. MACLEAN: Since these passages dealing with certain things which have been printed in other papers in this country have been cut out, does not the Under-Secretary of State consider that the sale of a mutilated copy of the paper, without having a notice to that effect upon the paper is selling goods under false pretences, and ought to be punished?

Mr. LLOYD: My right hon. Friend has no responsibility.

Mr. MACLEAN: I think he has.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

PROPOSED NEW GRAMMAR SCHOOL, DONCASTER.

Mr. SHORT: asked the President of the Board of Education whether the plans for the proposed new Doncaster grammar school have now received the endorsement of his Department; and, if so, when will reconstruction commence?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Oliver Stanley): Plans for the proposed new Doncaster grammar school have not yet been submitted to the board, but I am informed by the authority that the competition for the preparation of the plans has now been opened, and that the closing date for receiving plans is 30th June.

MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES.

Mr. CREECH JONES: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he can now make a statement on the question of maintenance allowances under Section 24 of the Education Act, 1921, and the position of local educational authorities in relation thereto; and, generally, on the policy of the Government in relation to the provision of State maintenance grants for children attending public elementary schools during the period of compulsory school attendance beyond the age of 14?

Mr. STANLEY: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on 5th March to the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Sir J. Walker-Smith), a copy oil which I am sending to the hon. Member.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS (COST, KENT AND MONMOUTHSHIRE).

Mr. JENKINS: asked the President of the Board of Education the cost of each pupil in average attendance in the secondary schools in Chislehurst and the county of Kent; and similar information for Monmouthshire?

Mr. STANLEY: It is not possible to give the cost of school maintenance for the secondary schools in Chislehurst which is not a separate administrative unit. The cost of maintenance for schools on the Grant list is as follows:

Kent: £27 1s. per pupil.

Monmouthshire: £24 4s. per pupil.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

HEALTH VISITORS.

Mr. JOEL: asked the Minister of Health whether it is his intention that, in connection with the visiting by health visitors of all children under the age of five who do not attend school, such visitation will affect all classes of the community; and, if not, how the scope of such visits will be limited?

Sir K. WOOD: I will send my lion. Friend a copy of the circular which I have recently issued on this subject. The question of visiting in any particular case is one within the discretion of the local authority, who will naturally take account of the extent to which to their knowledge the health of the child is already supervised.

MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE.

Mr. T. SMITH: asked the Minister of Health the names of the non-county borough and district councils which are maternity and child welfare authorities?

Sir K. WOOD: I shall be happy to send the hon. Member a list of these councils who number well over 200.

Oral Answers to Questions — DESTRUCTION OF FOOD.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: asked the Minister of Health whether he will state the cases brought to his notice in which, during the last 12 months, food of any description fit for human consumption has been destroyed and, in each case, the reason for the destruction and the action taken by the Department, either before


the destruction or since; and whether it is intended to take further powers to prevent such destruction?

Sir K. WOOD: No such cases have been brought to my notice as having occurred in England or Wales, and I do not consider that it is necessary to take steps to obtain further powers in the matter.

Mr. WILSON: Does that indicate that the Ministry are not concerned with regard to the matter?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir; but no cases have yet been brought to my notice.

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: asked the Minister of Agriculture (1) whether he is aware that the Herring Industry Board is advertising in the daily Press, recommending the population to eat herring for reasons of health and of economy; and what steps the board are taking to prevent the repeated cases of waste of food by cargoes of herring being thrown back into the sea owing to low market prices;
(2) whether he is aware that on 30th and 31st May several trawlers arrived at North Shields with catches of fresh herring and, being unable to obtain their minimum price, took their cargoes again to sea and discharged them overboard; and will he intervene to prevent any recurrence of such waste of food, especially in the special areas of Tyneside with its necessitous population?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I am aware of the efforts that are being made by the Herring Industry Board to increase the sale of herring. I am also aware of the discharge at sea of a quantity of herring off North Shields on 30th May last which was, I understand, due to unexpectedly heavy landings beyond the then capacity of the market. The fish in question were "over days," that is, more than 24 hours old and iced. The difficulties in this case were accentuated by the fact that the landings took place on the Saturday preceding a Bank Holiday. As regards the steps which are being taken to deal with landings of herring surplus to the capacity of the markets which are occurring from time to time at various fishing ports in Great Britain, I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to questions in this House on 25th May by my

hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and on 26th May by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to the effect that the Herring Industry Board are at present considering, in consultation with the Commissioners for the Special Areas and the Food Council, the problem caused by occasional and temporary very heavy supplies of herring.

Mr. ADAMS: When may we anticipate that this waste will cease by the distribution of herring under proper conditions to the distressed areas?

Mr. ELLIOT: The question of giving relief in kind is a very delicate one and is greatly objected to by many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. ADAMS: The Minister has already stated that the Herring Board is considering proper distribution.

Mr. LEONARD: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any arrangements have been made between the Pigs Marketing Board and the Milk Marketing Boards for the better utilisation of skimmed milk now going to waste at certain creameries?

Mr. ELLIOT: Collaboration has been, and is taking place between the Pigs and Milk Marketing Boards in regard to the utilisation of skim milk for pig feeding, and I am informed by the Milk Board that they have no knowledge of any supplies of skim milk being wasted at any creamery. If the hon. Member will inform me of any case within his knowledge of skim milk going to waste, I shall be glad to pass the information on to the Milk Board.

Mr. LEONARD: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the present issue of the Pig Marketing Board's bulletin m which such charges are made?

Mr. ELLIOT: Yes, Sir, but since then the difficulties have been entirely removed and these supplies are now being utilised.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. CROWDER: asked the Minister of Health whether he can make any further statement with regard to the progress made in working out the scheme


for voluntary insurance for pension purposes, and for the inclusion in such scheme of a greater proportion of black-coated workers who are now excluded?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir. Good progress is being made with the preparation of this scheme, although, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, proposals of this nature are inevitably complex and require careful consideration. Legislation in the present Session is not possible owing to the Government's other commitments.

Mr. GROVES: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that Mr. A. M. Gurney, of 118, Maryland Road, Stratford, E., an applicant for an old age pension, has an identification number of 36,404,917; that this long series of numerals causes confusion for applicants; and whether he will issue numbers more easily understandable?

Sir K. WOOD: The length of the pension number is due to the fact that in addition to denoting the particular pensioner it shows the week of the year in which a new order book is issuable and also the year in which the pensioner will attain the age of 70, when the charge for the pension has to be transferred from the Pensions Account to the Vote for Old Age Pensions. The system has now been in use for some years and experience has not shown that it causes inconvenience to pensioners; it is certainly of advantage to them in securing the virtually automatic renewal of their pensions.

Major MILLS: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will introduce legislation to alter the present position whereby, in calculating the means of claimants for old age and blind pensions under Section 4 of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1919, the yearly value of property, after excluding the first £25, is calculated as being 5 per cent, of the capital value of the next £375 and as being 10 per cent, in respect of all capital value in excess of the first £400, in view of the present cheapness of money and the low rates of interest yielded by British Government securities, including National Savings Certificates?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given by the Chancellor of

the Exchequer on 12th December last to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Brigadier-General Makins).

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.

MEDICAL TREATMENT (OLD AGE PENSIONERS).

Mr. GROVES: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the practice in some areas that before a patient recommended for treatment in a rate-aided institution is conveyed by ambulance the public assistance officer requests the old age pension book; and will he state whether this practice is with his knowledge and consent?

Sir K. WOOD: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the negative, but if he has any particular instances in mind and will let me have details I shall be happy to make inquiries.

APPRENTICESHIP.

Mr. CHRISTIE: asked the Minister of Health what powers public assistance authorities are authorised by his Department to exercise in relation to the apprenticeship of young persons?

Sir K. WOOD: Public assistance authorities are empowered by Section 59 of the Poor Law Act, 1930, to bind as apprentice any child whose parents are not able to maintain him. This power includes the power to pay an apprenticeship premium, but Article 122 of the Public Assistance Order, 1932, requires that, in the case if a person of 16 years of age or over, the premium shall not take any other form than that of clothing or tools for the use of the apprentice. The exercise of these powers does not require my approval.

Mr. CHRISTIE: In view of the shortage of skilled workpeople, will the right hon. Gentleman consider amending the order, so as to empower public assistance authorities to pay money towards premiums of apprenticeship as well as give money for tools and clothing?

Sir K. WOOD: I will consider that suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHASE FARM-SCHOOLS.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware


that the Middlesex public health committee have accepted a tender amounting to £120,087 for modernising the Chase farm-schools; and how many inmates will be accommodated in the schools when they are modernised?

Sir K. WOOD: I understand that the tender referred to has been withdrawn and that the county council have provisionally accepted a tender of £127,625. The reconstructed premises will be used for the accommodation of 418 adult persons.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL PARKS COMMITTEE (RECOMMENDATIONS).

Mr. MANDER: asked the Minister of Health whether the Government are now in a position to accept the recommendations of the National Parks Committee, which reported in April, 1931?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. Several local authorities are, however, preparing planning schemes under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, which will have the effect of preserving large areas of land, including a number of well-known beauty spots. Further schemes of the same kind may also be anticipated.

Mr. MANDER: Has not the right hon. Gentleman considered the definite recommendation of the report which would only involve the sum of £10,000 a year?

Sir K. WOOD: Other methods are being adopted.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

STAMP DUTIES.

Mr. BANFIELD: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that under Section 42 of the Finance Act, 1920, a purchaser of a security transferable by deed has to pay a stamp duty of £1 for each £100, whereas if a Stock Exchange dealer purchases a security value £100,000, which is transferred upon one deed, the stamp duty is but 10s.; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this anomaly, in view of the fact that the Exchequer would have benefited by £803,197 during the year to 31st March, 1936, had Section 42 of the said Act not operated during that period?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I am, of course, aware of the facts recited by the hon. Member, but I cannot agree that there is any anomaly. Transfers into the name of a dealer on a Stock Exchange differ essentially from other transfers in that stock so transferred represents not a purchase for investment but a part of the dealer's stock in trade. Consequently if the full £1 per cent, duty were made applicable to such transfers, the duty would act as a tax on the turnover of a dealer's business. The hon. Member no doubt appreciates that if a dealer does not sell the stock in his name within two months the full £1 per cent, duty has to be paid by him.

Mr. BANFIELD: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what justification existed for supplying members of the public with transfer forms free during the financial year 1935–36 at a cost to the Exchequer of approximately £975; and will he take steps to see that a charge is made for such transfer forms in future?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the hon. Member is probably aware, it is only forms with stamps on them that are supplied without charge for the form. The use of stamped forms, as compared with the alternative of stamping transfers after execution, enables savings to be made in other directions which counterbalance the cost of the forms. The cost of the separate forms is trifling and their issue free is a reasonable facility which I see no reason to discontinue.

Oral Answers to Questions — STEAMSHIP "QUEEN MARY."

Mr. MACLEAN: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether all the instruments utilised on the "Queen Mary" are of British design; and, if not, can he state those supplied by foreign firms and the reason for any preference?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I have previously explained to the House, I have been assured by the company that it was their aim and intention, wherever possible, to use British materials and equipment to the maximum possible extent. I am not in a position to say how far the instruments in question are of British design or manufacture, but I am confident that so far as there are any of foreign origin, they were chosen for a valid technical or commercial reason.

Mr. MACLEAN: Instead of giving us his opinion, will the right hon. Gentleman find out from the company concerned the actual facts?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall be happy to do so, but the hon. Member will appreciate that I have not had time to make any inquiries. Perhaps he will facilitate my inquiries and let me know what sort of instruments he has in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — BEVERLEY RACECOURSE COMPANY (PASTURE OF HURN).

Mr. MUFF: asked the Minister of Agriculture (1) what are the grounds upon which he has given permission to the Beverley Racecourse Company, a private company formed to carry on the business of horse racing, to exclude the public from their rights of access over a portion of the pasture of Hurn on seven days in the year; and whether the company makes any payment out of their profits for this privilege;
(2) whether, in view of the fact that the Beverley Common Pastures Regulation Act, 1836, gave to the public the free right of access for all time to the pasture of Hum, he will state by what authority he now denies the public complete free access thereto; and whether, in view of the law recently declared by the Lord Chief Justice in Rex v. the Minister of Health, his consent given to the Beverley Racecourse Company in defeasance will now be withdrawn?

Mr. ELLIOT: My consent to the fencing of the pasture of Hum during seven days in the year was given under Section 194 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, on the ground of the general benefit that might be expected to accrue therefrom, since the upkeep of the pasture is dependent to a large extent upon the rent of £200 per annum which is received by the pasture masters from the Beverley Racecourse Company. As stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member on 9th March last, no consideration was demanded or given for the consent. I would remind the hon. Member that horse races have been. held on the pasture of Hurn for at least 200 years, and the Act of 1836 to which he refers provided merely for a right of access to the pasture as free as that which had been previously permitted. I therefore see no ground for withdrawing

my consent to the temporary fencing of the pasture.

Mr. MUFF: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by his action he has handed over a sum of £955 per annum to a handful of the directors of this racecourse company without any consideration at all to the citizens and ratepayers of Beverley?

Mr. ELLIOT: No objections whatever were received to the application except one petition signed by 127 persons, and the Commons Preservation Society, whom I consulted before granting the application, did not offer any opposition.

Mr. MUFF: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAW REFORM.

Mr. DAY: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider appointing a committee for the purpose of advising the Government as to the removal from the Statute Book of those laws which, being repugnant to modern thought, are no longer effective but remain unrepealed?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I do not know to what particular laws the hon. Member refers. In January, 1934, the Lord Chancellor set up a Standing Committee to consider how far, having regard to the Statute Law and to judicial decisions, such legal maxims and doctrines as the Lord Chancellor might, from time to time refer to them, required revision in modern conditions. Certain matters were then referred to them and, as a result of their reports, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934, and the Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act, 1935, have been passed into law. The committee are now occupied with further matters referred to them by the late and the present Lord Chancellors.

Mr. DAY: Is there any hope of a further report being made?

HON. MEMBERS: Another day!

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWFOUNDLAND GOVERNMENT SECURITIES.

Mr. THURTLE: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the widespread apprehension, both in this country


and abroad, that the rise in the price of Newfoundland sterling bonds and other Newfoundland stocks in the months preceding the issue of the report of the commission charged with the duty of examining the finances of Newfoundland indicates a leakage of official information; and whether he will take such steps as may be necessary to ascertain whether there is a primâ facie case for an investigation into these matters?

The PRIME MINISTER: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to an allegation contained in a recent issue of an American newspaper. I have received a categorical assurance from the firm mentioned by this newspaper that no transactions in Newfoundland Government securities have been done for or on account of that firm or any of its partners. Apart from this, the hon. Member's question appears to be based on a misapprehension as to the facts of the case. It is true that a substantial rise occurred in the price of certain Newfoundland securities in the year 1933, but the rise occurred not in the months preceding the issue of the report of the commission but immediately on the publication of His Majesty's Government's proposals, based on the report of the commission, which were both published on 21st November, 1933. I attach no credence to the allegations.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the Prime Minister aware that the grave allegation made is that these stocks were quietly bought up on advance information improperly obtained before the publication of the report, that is to say, they were bought at a low price and sold immediately after the report had been issued at a high price? Does he not think in the interests of public purity that an examination ought to be made into this question to see whether there is any basis for the suggestion or not?

The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that the second paragraph in the American paper was not published in this country. Had it been published there is no doubt that action would have laid against the paper.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not merely a question of the American publication but that these suggestions have been made in this country. Does he think that

the public purity of this country ought to rest under such a charge? Ought it not to be examined?

The PRIME MINISTER: That entirely, depends on who makes the charges and where they are made. If we were to take notice of every charge that is made we should be doing nothing else but examine them. If the hon. Member has any further questions to put on this matter, I hope he will put them on the Order Paper. I have answered to the best of my ability the Question on the Paper to-day.

Mr. COCKS: Does not the Prime Minister think that statements made by Lord Beaverbrook are worth considering?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE.

Mr. PARKER: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he is aware that the articles of association of the British Film Institute, a body in receipt of a grant from the Cinematograph Fund, provide that three out of nine members of the governing council should represent the British film trade, and that one of the remaining members, elected to represent public interests, is a director of a private film company named the Trading Corporation for Educational and General Services, Limited; and whether, in view of the undesirability that trade interests on the said council should be represented by more than three persons having commercial interests in the film trade, he will take steps to alter the composition of the council?

The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir George Penny): I have been asked to reply. As my right hon. Friend stated on the 5th May in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Mr. V. Adams) the work of the British Film Institute generally is under consideration, and he must await the results of the inquiries that are being made before expressing an opinion as to the desirability of an alteration in the composition of the governing body.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

CATTLE INDUSTRY (SUBSIDY).

Duchess of ATHOLL: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he expects to be able to announce a long-term policy for the cattle industry before the end of June; and, if not, whether he will


ask Parliament to approve an extension of the existing subsidy for a further period of four months?

Captain MCEWEN: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is in a position to make any statement now regarding the progress of the negotiations connected with a long-term policy for the livestock industry?

Mr. ELLIOT: It is proposed to invite Parliament to approve before the end of June a resolution extending the provisions for the payment of a cattle subsidy under the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Acts, 1934 and 1935, until the end of October. I am not yet in a position to indicate the date of my statement on long-term policy for the cattle industry.

Duchess of ATHOLL: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his assurance in regard to the continuance of the subsidy which will do something to allay the anxieties of men who, in carrying on the live stock industry, are faced with great difficulties.

Captain MCEWEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the recent visit of two Argentina diplomats to the South Wales coalfields may not be taken as foreshadowing an agreement with the Argentine Government on a coal basis at the expense of the live stock industry of this country?

Mr. ELLIOT: I hope that there will be an agreement with the Argentine, but I do not think there is any reason to anticipate that it will be on a basis un-favourable to the interests of agriculture.

EGG MARKETING.

Mr. LIDDALL: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the result of the recent ballot on egg marketing policies shows that 83 per cent. of the voters favoured an increase in tariffs without any marketing scheme; and, as this ballot represents the opinion of 21,888 poultry producers owning 12,507,770 head of poultry, what action he proposes to take?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am aware of the facts stated in the first part of my hon. Friend's question. As regards the second part, the recommendations of the Reorganisation Commission for Eggs and Poultry for Great Britain, in so far as

they would involve initiatory action by the Government, are still (under consideration, and I am not at present in. a position to make a statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Duchess of ATHOLL: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of local authorities for Scotland which have been asked to undertake air-raid precautions; how many of these have refused to do so; and whether he is taking steps to bring home to these authorities a sense of responsibility for the safety of their citizens?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): All county and town councils in Scotland have been invited to undertake the preparation of air-raid precautionary schemes within their areas, and I have gratifying evidence of the readiness of the majority of local authorities to undertake this work. Up to the present only two local authorities have officially intimated that they are not prepared to co-operate, but I understand that in a very few other isolated cases the local authorities concerned have indicated their unwillingness to participate in the schemes. In reply to the last part of the question, steps are taken, as occasion arises, to point out to local authorities the importance of undertaking these precautions.

Colonel Sir CHARLES MacANDREW: What local authorities refuse to take precautions against air raids?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The County Council of West Lothian and the Town Council of Wick.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the No-More War Movement is publishing names of local authorities not complying with this request which are inaccurate and untrue?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I have not seen anything of that sort.

ROAD TRAFFIC (ACCIDENTS).

Mr. KENNEDY: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the increasing number of road accidents to pedestrians


and pedal cyclists through the excessive speed and negligence of motor cyclists and motor-car drivers; how many cases have been reported in which drivers have neither stopped when accidents took place nor made any report on such accidents; and whether any steps are being considered for the better regulation of road traffic and the imposition of appropriate penalties on guilty drivers?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I understand that the total number of pedestrians and pedal cyclists killed and injured in road accidents in Scotland showed a decrease in 1935 as compared with 1934. I have no information as regards the second part of the question. As regards the last part of the question, the problem of the better regulation of road traffic is a matter which is receiving the constant attention, of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Transport. The imposition of penalties on persons found guilty of offences is a matter for the courts.

WHEAT AND BARLEY.

Mr. ERSKINE HILL: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total area under wheat and barley in Scotland for the years 1913 and 1935, respectively?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The figures are as follow:

1913.
1935.



Acres.
Acres.


Wheat
54,784
100,744


Barley
198,247
76,513

OATS.

Duchess of ATHOLL: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the price of oats at Perth, or at the nearest market to Perth, for which figures are available at 1st June, 1936, 1935, and 1925?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The price of oats at Perth market on 3rd June, 1936, was 4s. 6d. per cwt., on 5th June, 1935, 6s. 8d. per cwt., and on 5th June, 1925, 9s. 6d. per cwt.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend not recognise that these are very serious figures? In spite of the large import duties on foreign

oats, may I impress on him the importance of doing something to ensure higher prices for the producers of oats?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: It is recognised that these prices are low.

MIDWIVES (LEGISLATION).

Mr. LEONARD: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he proposes to present to Parliament a Midwifery Bill for Scotland; and, if so, can he give any indication as to when he will introduce it?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Yes, Sir. It is the intention of my right hon. Friend to introduce a Bill this Session, but he is not yet able to announce a definite date. As the hon. Member is aware, the Scottish problem differs both in nature and extent from that in England and in framing proposals my right hon. Friend has thought it expedient to secure the fullest measure of agreement with local authorities and other interests concerned. Consultations to that end are actively proceeding.

HEALTH SERVICES COMMITTEE (REPORT).

Mr. LEONARD: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the report of the Committee on Scottish Health Services will be available?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I understand that the report of the Committee on Scottish Health Services will probably be submitted to my right hon. Friend by the end of this month. Publication will follow immediately the report is received.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

PIT ACCIDENT (NEWTONGRANGE).

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that a boy of 15 years of age was killed in a pit in Newtongrange, Midlothian, while in charge of an engine; and, as it, is illegal to have a boy of that age underground in charge of machinery, what steps is he prepared to take to stop the practice and punish those responsible?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): It is assumed that the case to which the hon. Member refers is that of James Melville Fletcher, whose death at Newbattle


Colliery on 28th May will form the subject of an inquiry under the Fatal Accidents Inquiries (Scotland) Acts, to be held on 18th June. Pending consideration of the result of the inquiry, I am unable to make any statement.

Mr. GALLACHER: Is the Minister aware that the manager of this colliery controls the life of the village in such a way that he forces the people to do anything, no matter what it may be, and that before the inquiry this question should be taken up?

SAFETY OFFICERS.

Mr. W. JOSEPH STEWART: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will consider appointing safety officers at the large collieries in the federated areas for the purpose of investigating all accidents and suggesting remedies, making routine inspections to ascertain that the provisions of the Coal Mines Acts are being strictly observed, imparting instruction to boys on entering the mines, and keeping in touch with them until they have become accustomed to mining conditions?

Captain CROOKSHANK: If I understand the suggestion rightly it would involve greatly increasing the number of Government inspectors and enlarging their duties by transferring to them part of the statutory responsibilities of the mine owner and management. The whole question of the proper scope of Government inspection is being considered by the Royal Commission on Safety now sitting.

Mr. STEWART: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the managers of the collieries where these safety officers are employed are agreed that accidents are less than they would have been without those officers; that they place great confidence in these officers and are very pleased at such appointments?

Captain CROOKSHANK: Yes, Sir. I think that is probably a very fair statement of the case and that it is valuable evidence, such as the Royal Commission when making their recommendations, will undoubtedly have in mind.

SOUTH WALES COALFIELD (DRAINAGE).

Mr. JAMES GRIFFITHS: asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, following the recent unfortunate flooding

of the Loveston Colliery, Pembrokeshire, considerable apprehension exists among the men employed at collieries adjacent to old workings known to be waterlogged; whether he will take steps to secure that this problem is dealt with by the adoption of a comprehensive drainage scheme for the whole of the South Wales coalfield; and whether the Government are prepared to render such financial assistance as will make such drainage scheme possible and practicable?

Captain CROOKSHANK: Though no representations have as yet been made to me, I can well understand that there is anxiety, and I am considering what further measures might be taken to relieve it: but I am advised that the class of case in which there may be apprehension of water danger from old workings along the outcrops of the anthracite seams would not be amenable to treatment or be affected by any general drainage scheme.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Is it not a fact that the original inspector urged upon the Minister's Department for several years the necessity, in the interests of safety, of a scheme of this kind and that it has not been brought forward because of the financial difficulty; and will the Minister reply to that part of the question?

Captain CROOKSHANK: That is not really a part of the question. If the hon. Member will look at the second report of the Commissioner for the Special Areas, paragraphs 82 and 83, he will find the ease dealt with there and the reasons given why the scheme has not been adopted.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: That is the report of the Commissioner who urged the Government to proceed with the scheme, but what the Government are going to do we do not know yet.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The Commissioner did not urge the Government to proceed with the scheme. Perhaps the hon. Member will refresh his memory by reading the paragraphs to which I have referred him.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

FLYING-BOAT BASE, PORTSMOUTH.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what progress


has been made in the development of the new flying-boat base at Portsmouth for the Imperial Airways service to Australia; what subsidy will be paid to the Portsmouth Corporation; and whether he is satisfied that a large flying boat can take off on the proposed site satisfactorily in all directions?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The question of the provision of a flying-boat base at Portsmouth has been the subject of preliminary discussions between the Air Ministry and the Portsmouth Corporation. The matter is primarily one for the corporation, but they have recently made an application for some measure of Government assistance towards the finance of the scheme in recognition of the Imperial value of the base. This application will be examined forthwith by the Inter-Departmental Committee on International Air Communications. As regards the last part of the question, I have no reason to suppose that any scheme sponsored by the corporation, after consultation with all concerned, would prove other than operationally satisfactory.

BLIND LANDING (LORENZ SYSTEM).

Mr. MANDER: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what steps are being taken to ensure that air ports in this country, and in particular Croydon, are being equipped with facilities to enable aircraft to land under conditions of low visibilty; and whether the Lorenz system installed at Heston has been tested to determine whether it meets with the Air Ministry requirements?

Sir P. SASSOON: It is the general policy of the Air Ministry to encourage the use of blind landing wireless equipment, in the interests of safety in fog and other conditions of low visibility, but my Noble Friend has no powers to require aerodrome owners to install such equipment. So far as Croydon is concerned, the matter is receiving close attention and investigations are actively proceeding into the merits of different systems. As regards the last part of the question, the Lorenz system at Heston has been successful in use to date, but all the technical tests to which it is being subjected have not yet been completed.

FOREIGN AIRCRAFT (LOW FLYING).

Sir JONAH WALKER-SMITH: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that on the 22nd of last month the German airship "Hindenberg" passed over Barrow-in-Furness flying very low and proceeding slowly; whether Barrow is scheduled as a prohibited area for foreign aircraft; if not, whether the Minister will, having regard to the nature of the industry of Barrow and to the increasing extent of the building of ships of defence and other defensive preparations in that town, consider the advisability of adding Barrow to the prohibited areas already scheduled as such; whether there is any convention in regard to the carrying and use of cameras by foreign aircraft passing over this country; and in what way does the Minister assure himself that any conventions for the prevention of air-photography of places of strategic importance, such as Barrow, are properly observed?

Sir P. SASSOON: I have no information as to the exact altitude and speed at which the German airship "Hindenburg" passed over Barrow-in-Furness, which is not scheduled as a prohibited area; but no official report as to low flying has been received by the Air Ministry. The areas at present scheduled as prohibited are all in the immediate neigbhourhood of naval and military establishments, and my Noble Friend would be reluctant to add to their number in view of the effect of the creation of new prohibited areas upon the freedom of civil air navigation. The general question has however been under review for some time. As regards photography, the Anglo-German Air Navigation Agreement expressly prohibits, except with special permission, the carrying of cameras in German aircraft visiting this country, and no permission to carry photographic apparatus was applied for in the present case. My Noble Friend has no reason for thinking that this particular condition of air entry is not observed by German aircraft flying over this country, just as it is observed by our own aircraft when flying over Germany.

Sir J. WALKER-SMITH: What is the answer to the last part of the question,


as to the means taken to see that the terms of the agreement are observed in regard to the prohibition of air-photography?

Sir P. SASSOON: I said in my answer that it was prohibited by the agreement which I mentioned. There are obvious difficulties in the case, and, as I said, it has been constantly under review.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE (OBSERVATION BALLOONS).

Mr. CHORLTON: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any lighter-than-air development in the way of observation balloons and small airships for South Coast patrol is contemplated?

Sir P. SASSOON: The possibility of the useful employment of observation balloons in connection with air defence is under constant review, but it would not be in the public interest to publish details.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES.

Mr. CHORLTON: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now able to report that direct radio service will be maintained in the future with Trinidad, the North Post station and the wireless station in Port-of-Spain being retained, and that the change from the present arrangements as proposed will not now be proceeded with?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply which was given to my hon. Friend on 14th May, and I will communicate with him as soon as the Governor's despatch is received and a decision has been reached.

Mr. CHORLTON: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is taking any steps for an air survey of the West Indian islands with a view to assist the ultimate setting up of an air service between those islands?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: His Majesty's Government are considering the possibility of the establishment of a British air service in the West Indies, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he is aware that, on 27th May, a force consisting of 250 British soldiers with 12 armoured cars entered the village of Kafr Misr, near Beisan, and burned a number of Arab dwellings; what was the total number of dwellings burnt; whether the collective fines ordinance is being administered there; what money has been collected under this ordinance as a punitive measure in the village of Kafr Kanna under the direction of the assistant district commissioner and the district superintendent of police; and on what grounds this levy was imposed;
(2) whether he is aware that in the village of Kakoon, near Tulkarm, a force of Arab and British police entered a house in the early morning in search of arms; that because an Arab policeman refrained from commencing the search until the Arab inmate of the house, who was making his morning prayer, had finished his prayer, the Arab policeman was shot dead by a British colleague; and what steps have been taken to settle the strike or revolt among the Arab police in Tulkarm and Jaffa resulting from this incident?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am not aware of any strike or revolt having occurred among the Arab police at Tulkarm and Jaffa, but I am asking the High Commissioner for Palestine for information as to the incidents referred to by the hon. Member.

Mr. GALLACHER: Arising out of that answer and the limitation of information which it indicates, may I ask whether any instructions have been given to the Press of this country not to report anything favourable to the Arabs in Palestine or anything against the British Administration in Palestine?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Certainly not. There is no such censorship or attempted censorship of the Press of this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (STATISTICS).

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the President of the Board of Trade why in the Statistical Abstract for the United


Kingdom, published in March, 1936, the most recent statistics in respect of electricity supply do not go beyond the year which ended 31st March, 1933?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): Complete particulars for a later year were not available when the Statistical Abstract was published. The particulars for the year ended 31st March, 1934, were published by the Electricity Commission in May, 1936.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

ARGENTINA.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is arranging with the Argentine Government that suitable transport co-ordination legislation in relation to the Anglo-Argentine railways shall form part of the terms for the renewal of the Anglo-Argentine trade agreement?

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the continued general ill-treatment by the Argentine authorities of non-Argentine capital, as again disclosed in relation to the, Buenos Ayres waterworks and the Primitiva Holdings Company, he will reserve power to review or terminate any Anglo-Argentine trade agreement at the end of every 12 months until he has established the policy that any such agreement rests upon fair treatment of Anglo-Argentine investments?

Captain EUAN WALLACE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I understand that legislation of the character referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for North Newcastle (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle) is already before the Argentine Parliament. The position of British public utility companies is being kept in mind in connection with the present discussions with the Argentine Government, and the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Chester (Sir C. Cayzer) has been noted.

TIMBER IMPORTS (FREIGHTAGE).

Sir C. CAYZER: asked the President of the Board of Trade why timber loaded

at Archangel for United Kingdom ports is bought by British firms c.i.f. instead of f.o.b., with the result that British shipping does not transport the timber; and, if he is convinced that the terms should be c.i.f., will he stipulate through the trade agreement or by other suitable means that British shipping shall obtain its fair share of the timber freightage?

Dr. BURGIN: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the question of the terms of purchase of imported timber is primarily for the traders concerned. But the question of the use of British ships in this trade is receiving attention.

COTTON INDUSTRY (ADVISORY COMMITTEE).

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now able to state the names of those who have been nominated to serve as members of the Advisory Committee under the Cotton Spinning Industry Act?

Dr. BURGIN: Section 3 of the. Cotton Spinning Industry Act requires the Board of Trade to consult certain organisations regarding the persons to be appointed as members of the Advisory Committee under the Act. My right hon. Friend is in communication with those organisations, but he is not yet in a position to give the names of the persons who will serve on the committee.

PACIFIC TRADE (BRITISH SHIPPING).

Captain P. MACDONALD: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the number of ships of British registry now engaged in the Pacific trade which are officered and manned almost entirely by Japanese nationals; and what are the present regulations with regard to the ownership and officering of vessels in order to enable the red ensign to be flown?

Dr. BURGIN: My attention has been called to one ship so officered. The qualifications for owning a British ship are contained in Section 1 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, which, in general, provides that only British subjects and bodies corporate established under and subject to the laws of some part of His Majesty's Dominions and having their principal place of business in those Dominions are entitled to own a British ship and thus to fly the red ensign. The


Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, provide that no alien shall act as master, chief officer, or chief engineer of a British merchant ship registered in the United Kingdom except in the case of a ship employed habitually in voyages between ports outside the United Kingdom, and exception being made in favour of officers certified by the Admiralty to have performed good and faithful service in those capacities during the War.

Captain MACDONALD: What action has been taken to deal with ships which offend against the regulations?

Dr. BURGIN: The vessel in question is understood to be habitually employed between ports outside the United Kingdom.

Mr. THURTLE: What national anthem is sung on this ship on formal occasions?

BRAZIL (MANCHESTER FIRMS' CLAIMS).

Sir J. NALL: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that three Manchester firms have suffered a grave denial of justice in the Brazilian courts; and what steps are being taken in the matter?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount Cranborne): Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is aware of the decisions of the Brazilian courts regarding the claims of the three Manchester textile firms Messrs. Armitage and Rigby, Limited, Hollins, Mill and Company, Limited, and Richard Haworth and Company, Limited, in the Brazilian courts. The attention of the Brazilian Government was drawn to the case not less than two years ago, but I regret to say that no satisfactory reply has yet been received. His Majesty's Ambassador at Rio de Janeiro was recently instructed to renew his representations to the Brazilian Government on the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANADA (PROVINCIAL LOANS).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has taken steps with the Canadian Dominion authorities to protect the United Kingdom holders of Alberta and Vancouver loans, in view of the local attempts now to alter the terms

upon which investors were originally invited to subscribe to the public issue of these loans?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Marquess of Hartington): The control of provincial and municipal finance in Canada does not come within the Dominion Government's jurisdiction. My hon. Friend will, therefore, appreciate that representations by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom in the direction suggested would serve no useful purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING (WEST REGIONAL STATION).

Mr. J. GRIFFITHS: asked the Postmaster-General whether when framing proposals for the new charter to the British Broadcasting Corporation, he will include provisions to secure that the persons appointed by the corporation to the West regional station shall be such as are familiar with, and are representative of, the interests of the whole of the Principality?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Walter Womersley): . Regulations of this sort are not suitable for inclusion in a charter; but I understand that the British Broadcasting Corporation have already taken active steps to secure for the Welsh Region the object which the hon. Member has in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.

Mr. PURBECK: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that the expense of conveying the Emperor of Ethiopia from Palestine to Gibraltar has so far been borne by the British public, whether he will make an application to the League of Nations that this charge should be borne pro rata by that body and not fall entirely on Great Britain?

Viscount CRANBORNE: No, Sir.

Mr. PURBRICK: In view of the fact that the state of war still officially exists between Italy and Abyssinia was it not a breach of our neutrality for us to succour either of the combatants?

Viscount CRANBORNE: No, I do not think it was. I think that it was a very proper courtesy to extend.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIBYA (AEROPLANE CREW, ARREST).

Mr. DAY: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received a report of the incident in which an aeroplane, the "Hanno," belonging to Imperial Airways and piloted by Captain Walter Rogers, landed at Mesylam, in Libya, and was put under armed guard, the pilot and crew being told to consider themselves under arrest, despite the fact that the working permits of these men and their craft to fly over Italian territory were all in order; whether he has made any representation on this matter to the Italian authorities; and will he make a statement?

Viscount CRANBORNE: His Majesty's Government have very recently received a report regarding the incident referred to by the hon. Member, and instructions are being sent forthwith to His Majesty's Ambassador at Rome to make representations on the subject to the Italian Government.

Mr. DAY: Will the Noble Lord also consider protesting against the pilot and crew of this aeroplane being paraded before the native troops?

Viscount CRANBORNE: We had better await the results of the representations.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

Sir C. CAYZER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any further statement as to the situation in Southern China, especially in view of the large British commercial and national interests affected?

Mr. CREECH JONES: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make concerning the relations of the Nanking Government and the South-west Political Council of Kwantung, Kwangsi, Kweichow, and Yunnan; and what arrangements have been made for the protection of British interests?

Viscount CRANBORNE: There has been a certain movement northward of troops under the authority of the Southwest Political Council, but the reasons for this are not clear, a variety of conflicting motives having been ascribed to it. A denial of any intention to provoke

civil war has been issued at Canton. Routine measures for the protection both by land and sea in a possible emergency of the centres of British interest in the area involved have, however, been taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY (RESERVISTS).

Mr. MACLEAN: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the pay of the naval reservists has been recently increased; if so, by how much and the date of the last increase; and whether all naval reservists have been given this increased allowance or whether special conditions have to be observed to earn it?

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): There has been no recent increase in the pay of naval reservists, but marriage allowance, which was previously payable over the age of 25, is now payable during training to married men over the age of 21 in the Royal Naval Reserve, Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve and Royal Naval Auxiliary Sick Berth Reserve. It has also been decided, as from next November, to increase the Royal Naval Reserve bounty on the lines recently approved for the Territorial Army.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MONMOUTHSHIRE).

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the Minister of Health what action has been taken, as a result of the request from urban authorities in Monmouthshire, for an inquiry into the administration of the finances of the county?

Sir K. WOOD: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Sir W. Smithers) on 14th and 21st May.

Mr. WILLIAMS: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that on 225 occasions grants were made at meetings of public assistance committees in Monmouthshire at which there was not a quorum present; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent a repetition of such committees acting in the absence of a quorum?

Sir K. WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It is obviously impossible for me to


compel members to attend the meetings of committees to which they have accepted election; but I am communicating with the county council in the hope that means may be found to remedy this unsatisfactory state of affairs.

Oral Answers to Questions — BURMA (BRITISH MINISTERS).

Mr. GEORGE HALL: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister what arrangements are proposed to be made for fulfilling the responsibilities of His Majesty's Government as laid down in the Government of Burma Act?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have come to the conclusion that following the separation of Burma from India there should be a separate Secretaryship of State for Burma, and also a new office of Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Burma. For reasons of practical convenience the Secretaryship of State and Parliamentary under-Secretaryship for Burma will, for the present, be held by the same persons as the Secretaryship of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretaryship for India, and the Burma Office will be housed in the India Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS AND SANCTIONS.

Mr. ATTLEE: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether, in the speech delivered yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the reference to the League of Nations and to the question of sanctions represents the policy of His Majesty's Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend informs me that the suggestions put forward by him last night were definitely stated by him to be provisional reflections on the experience gained by the Italo-Abyssinian dispute which had occurred to him personally.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a matter of grave embarrassment to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if a very responsible Minister thinks aloud and allows his thoughts to be made public?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think so. This is the first question that I have had asked about any speech made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor

of the Exchequer. He was addressing a very exclusive and politically educated audience, and it seems to me, from a hasty perusal I have made of the rather truncated report, that he posed a number of questions which, I think, were worthy of consideration.

Mr. ATTLEE: Was it not much more than posing questions and that he stated very clearly what was his opinion? I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that it is the traditional and constitutional practice that on matters of this kind Ministers should not make statements which are supposed only to give their private opinions because they speak the collective voice of the Cabinet and on matters of foreign affairs generally Ministers should not commit these indiscretions.

Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the assurance that this incursion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer into the domain of the Secretary of State for Foriegn Affairs was unauthorised, and that the policy of the Government remains fidelity to our obligations under the Covenant of the League of Nations, a policy which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer characterised last night as midsummer madness?

The PRIME MINISTER: I make no complaint myself of what my right hon. Friend has said.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Having regard to the many countries which endeavour to incline their foreign policy in accordance with that of Great Britain, would not the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister consider the urgency of a Government statement stating quite clearly where His Majesty's Government stand collectively, and will he give us some information as to when that statement will be made?

The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend and the whole House know how important it is that such a policy should be framed as soon as possible. We are at present considering the very difficult questions that have been raised by the situation on the Continent, and there will, of course, be opportunity in due course for another debate on foreign affairs.

Mr. ATTLEE: This is not a light matter. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the specific question whether the definite opinion put out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer represents the present policy of His Majesty's Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think I can go further than in the answer I have given. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has explained to me quite frankly that they were provisional reflections on the experience gained in the Italo-Abyssinian dispute.

Mr. ATTLEE: Does that reply mean that this does not represent the considered views of His Majesty's Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an answer, aye or no, to that question?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer.

The PRIME MINISTER: No conclusions on this matter have yet been reached.

Mr. MAXTON: Is it the view of the Prime Minister that there are in this country exclusive bodies who are more entitled than the House of Commons to have the provisional reflections of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

The PRIME MINISTER: I used the term "exclusive" in the sense in which I have often seen it used in the Press.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: Is there any hope that those admirable reflections may be adopted by the rest of the Government soon?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister what the business will be for next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, the conclusion Of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
Thursday.—Supply, Committee (8th Allotted Day). Scottish Estimates will be put down.
Friday.—Supply, Committee (9th Allotted Day). (1st part). Colonial Office Vote, for a debate on the present situation in Palestine.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.
If the Debate on the Budget Disclosure Inquiry Report is concluded at a reasonable hour to-night, we propose to take the Committee stage of the Pensions (Governors of Dominions, etc.) Bill.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer powers upon the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Brighton with respect to the prevention of contamination of their water supply; to confer further powers upon them in relation to their water undertaking and other matters; to make better provision for the health, local government and finance of the borough; and for other purposes." [Brighton Corporation Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Urban District Council of Ilfracombe to construct additional waterworks and to confer further powers upon the Council with regard to their water undertaking; to make further and better provision for the improvement, health and local government and finance of the district; and for other purposes." [Ilfracombe Urban District Council Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Mayor Aldermen and Citizens of the City of Rochester to acquire a portion of the undertaking of the Higham and Hundred of Hoo Water Company; to authorise the Corporation to construct waterworks and to confer further powers on the Corporation with regard to the supply of water; to make further and better provisions for the health improvement and local government and finance of the City; and for other purposes." [Rochester Corporation Bill [Lords.]

And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to incorporate the Hartley Water Committee and to authorise them to construct works for affording an additional supply of water to the Mid Kent Water Company and the Gravesend and Milton Waterworks Company; to incorporate the Cuxton Water Committee and to authorise them to construct works for affording an additional supply of water to the Mid Kent Water Company, the Chatham and District Water Company,


and the Higham and Hundred of Hoo Water Company and the Mayor Aldermen and Citizens of the City of Rochester; to authorise the construction of waterworks by each of the said Companies and to confer further powers upon them; and for other purposes." [North West Kent Joint Water Bill [Lords.]

BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

ILFRACOMBE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].

ROCHESTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

NORTH WEST KENT JOINT WATER BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

LAND REGISTRATION BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next.

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS.

3.54 p.m.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: No Member of this House ever addressed it under such painful circumstances as I do to-day, and I know I express the sentiments of all parties when I hope that never again will any Member be similarly placed. I emphasised in my letter of resignation to the Prime Minister that no Member of a Government had any right to consider his personal position; the best interests of his country must always be the paramount consideration. Therefore, when the Tribunal concluded its public sittings I immediately tendered my resignation from the Government, and gave my reasons. I feel sure the House will agree that I took the only course open to me in my position. The Tribunal has now given its report and it is public property. The Members of this House will be able themselves to form their own judgment on the evidence and the findings. I ought, however, to state that I made it clear to my personal friends that, whatever the findings of the Tribunal, I intended to accept them without challenge, not because a judicial body is infallible and unable to make mistakes—indeed, if that were so there would be no need of the provision made for a Court of Appeal, although in this case there is none—but because I believed, and still believe, there is no fairer or more impartial court in the world than a British judicial tribunal, which, I am certain, is not influenced by either party prejudice or class bias. I believe that of this Tribunal, however keenly I feel the bearing of the report upon myself. I do not, therefore, intend to go into details. I must let those who have read all the evidence and the report judge for themselves. I am, however, entitled to say, and I do say, to this House, regardless of any report, that I never consciously gave a Budget secret away. That I repeat, in spite of the Tribunal's findings. To attempt to deal in detail with some of my private affairs would be as painful to me as it would be unfair to this House. This much, however, I will say: My vices, if they are vices, have always been open, and never disguised, even from my own family.
I ask the House to bear with me a few moments while I explain my future attitude. After resigning my Cabinet seat

I am still a Member of this House. Very naturally I have received much advice, and the course I have decided upon is a course that I know will cause keen disappointment to many, but it is a course which follows the dictates of my own conscience, and in so grave a personal matter that is the sole test. I was urged, and especially by my most loyal supporters in Derby, to stick fast, and not resign. I appreciate their reasoning and their loyalty, but all my life I have urged the people of this country to look up to this House as the greatest democratic assembly in the world; to do nothing and allow people to say, as they would be entitled to say, that democracy was not being given a chance to express its view, would belie all my past principles, and I refuse to do it. I have been urged to resign and fight Derby again. Many of my friends still believe I should win. Sir, I have not the strength left at present to fight a by-election; but even if I had, and if I won, that victory in a constituency could not wipe the stain of the Report from me—I should feel every day and every hour that it was a mockery; my conscience and my better self would revolt from it. I have rejected that advice.
I, therefore, intend to resign immediately. In thanking all parties in this House for their kindness, thought and generosity over a period of 27 years, I can only hope that during that long period I have made some contribution of benefit to what to-day is almost alone the bulwark of democratic Government the world over, and which I still want to go on unimpaired. I will only say that no words in this Debate can wound me more than I have been wounded; nothing can be ever said that can humiliate me more than I have already been humiliated. But I can at least go to the one who shares all my trials and all my triumphs, and who still believes in me in this, the darkest hour of my life.

4.2 p.m.

Sir ALFRED BUTT: I ask the House to bear with me while I make a personal explanation in what will be my last address to this Parliament. Until to-day I had not the slightest intention of resigning my seat, but having regard to the action taken by the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) I feel that it would be impossible for me to take up a different position. I


wish to reiterate emphatically that neither the right hon. Member for Derby nor any other Cabinet Minister has ever consciously or unconsciously disclosed to me any information whatsoever of a confidential nature. I would only ask the House to hear my reasons. When I received information of the appalling decision of the Tribunal, I had one definite conviction. Conscious as I was of the grave injustice done to me, I knew I could rest assured, after reading the recent speech of the Lord Chancellor, that the matter would not be allowed to remain where it is, and that I should have an absolute right to be tried in a court of justice, where my case could be tried alone, where I should have full notice of the charge made against me, where only properly and admissible evidence would be given both for me and against me, but where no matters concerning other people of which I had never heard and whose very existence was unknown to me, would be introduced, with all the prejudice that such introduction might invoke. To my horror I learned yesterday for the first time that no such opportunity was to be afforded to me. There is to be no prosecution; my case is never to be tried.
I would ask right hon. and hon. Members to visualise the position in which I now find myself. I have been condemned, and apparently I must suffer for the rest of my life from a finding against which there is no appeal, upon evidence which apparently does not justify a trial, and there is now no method open to me by which I can bring the true and full facts, before a, jury of my fellow-men. With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I cannot conceive that the combined ingenuity and learning of the Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General could not have devised some method by which the vital issues raised could be properly and fairly tried in a court of justice in the usual way. Personally, I should have been quite prepared to risk the prejudice referred to by the Attorney-General in his statement yesterday. If, therefore, these hon. and learned Gentlemen have failed to devise a method of giving me a trial, how can I ask this House to acquit me?
If any good may come from this, the most miserable moment of my life, I

can only hope that my position may do something to prevent any other person in this country being subject to the humiliation and the wretchedness which I have suffered, without trial, without appeal and without redress. Can it be wondered that I feel from the bottom of my heart that I am the victim of a grave injustice? I have tried to serve this House and my constituents faithfully to the best of my ability for 14 years, and I now leave it with only one consolation—absolute knowledge of my innocence, although I am, apparently, to be denied the opportunity of proving it. Even now I hope and pray that some means may still be available in future to enable me to prove my integrity. Mr. Speaker, I propose immediately to apply for the Chiltern Hundreds.

BUDGET DISCLOSURE INQUIRY.

4.8 p.m.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I beg to move
That the Report of the Tribunal appointed under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, be now considered.
The House will remember, for it is but a few short weeks ago, that certain rumours got afoot and spread rapidly, as to disclosures that had been made of Budget secrets, and they will remember how, in accordance with their sentiments, the Government took immediate action and set up, with the unanimous support of the House, a Tribunal to investigate these matters, and how again, after a period of almost only days, that Tribunal reported, and the House has just witnessed what every Member must feel to be a most painful scene. I propose to speak quite shortly and to deal entirely with the matter of the Tribunal and the honour of this House. Further matters may be raised in the discussion, but I shall confine myself to these. I think it only right, for the purpose of record, to make as clear as I can the difference between the Tribunal which was set up and the ordinary court of law, in order that the House may be clear on points that I think may be apt to be a little confusing.
The Attorney-General is responsible, as the House knows, for instituting proceedings on a criminal charge, and he explained to the House yesterday his


reasons for not instituting criminal proceedings. He emphasised, among other things, the necessity of establishing that any disclosure was deliberate. But the question which the Tribunal had to investigate was a wider and a more general one. It was the question whether any unauthorised disclosure of any kind was made of information relating to the Budget for the present year, or any use was made of it for the purpose of private gain. The House will see, therefore, that the Tribunal was not only not bound by rules of criminal procedure and was not concerned with all the ingredients of a criminal charge, but was considering whether there had been a leakage of any kind, whether purely accidental or careless or deliberate, and the unanimous conclusion reached by the Tribunal is that there was in fact an unauthorised disclosure.
There is, of course, no inconsistency between the decision of the Attorney-General and the conclusions of the Tribunal, and it would be very wrong to treat the finding of the Tribunal as a finding that an offence had been committed against the specific terms of the criminal law. I emphasise this distinction because great injustice would be done to two Members of this House if they were regarded as having been found guilty by the Tribunal of a criminal act. They have not been charged with any criminal act. But that, of course, does not conclude the matter as far as this. House is concerned. We have the right and the duty to consider the conclusions reached by the Tribunal, which a Resolution of Parliament caused to be appointed and armed with powers. If those conclusions reflect on the conduct of any hon. Member, quite apart from any assumption or allegation of conduct which the law would punish, I, as the Leader of the House, have the very responsible task to discharge, however distasteful it may be, however grievous the consequences to individuals, of advising the House as to the course which it should take with reference to the finding of the Tribunal.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas), whose long public career is known to every Member of this House, and whose loyal co-operation for the last five years in the Government of which I am now the head, I gratefully acknowledge, recognises—you

saw it from his speech—that the House is bound to accept the finding of the Tribunal. The impartiality of the Tribunal's members is beyond challenge, and we all acknowledge the sense of duty under which it undertook this task, and the competence and thoroughness with which it discharged it. We have, I consider, no other course but to accept its findings. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, I am sure, realises that, and he has taken a course to-day which deserves, and I know will receive, the full sympathy of the House. While maintaining, as he has a perfect right to do, that he is conscious of no offence, he recognises the unanimous conclusion reached by the Tribunal as one from which the House cannot differ. As I have said, as Leader of the House I am bound to say we have no alternative but to accept it. It is not a finding of guilt under the Official Secrets Act; it is a finding of unauthorised disclosure, however that disclosure was made.
That conclusion is a grave one which, of itself, necessarily inflicts a very heavy penalty, for it ends a long career of strenuous public service, outside and inside this House. There is not one of us who does not feel deep sympathy with my right hon. Friend, and the course he has taken—and, in my judgment, rightly taken—is one in which no further action in regard to him is needed. He has consulted his own dignity and the dignity of the House in enabling us, after hearing his personal statement, to accept the report without further comment. In the case of the hon. Member for Balham and Tooting (Sir A. Butt), who has also decided to resign his seat, the House will feel that he, too, has taken the proper course. In his case, it is necessary to emphasise arid to remember that the finding of the Tribunal is not, and does not profess to be, a criminal verdict. It is a finding that, in his case, use was made of confidential information for the purpose of his private gain, and here, again, the course which I must recommend to the House is that the report of the Tribunal should be accepted.
There are one or two observations I desire to add. The House is always jealous, and properly jealous—all of us—of its reputation and of the conduct of its Members, and where errors have been committed, however serious I would say, the House looks to see that expiation is


made. I wish, before I sit down, to tell the House that, in any view, both as Leader of the House and as a man, that expiation in full has been made by those two Members. The finding has gone against them, against which there is no appeal; whatever stigma may remain from that finding remains for all time, with no possibility of appeal. This House they have left for the last time, and it is closed to them. The unthinking cruelty of modern publicity has been theirs for weeks, perhaps the severest punishment which modern civilisation can give; that has been theirs in full measure. There is one other thing, and I think, perhaps, the older I grow the more conscious I am of it; when I see a man put before a Tribunal of that nature, to answer questions on episodes in his past life where anything may be brought up, I ask myself: "Which of us would escape?" They are paying the penalty in full.
Let us hope with all our hearts that we may never again take part in so painful a scene in this House. I am confident that no Resolution of this House will be passed, as no words will be uttered by me, to make more bitter for those two colleagues of ours the bitter experience which has been theirs and through which they have passed to-day. I do not propose of this moment to move any Amendment to the Motion which I have put down, because I do not wish in any way to limit the range of the Debate that may follow, and that can follow, on the original Motion; but I do propose at some time in the course of the after-noon or evening, at a suitable moment, to move, in line 2, to omit the words "now considered," and to insert the word "accepted."

4.22 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: In view of the last statement of the Prime Minister that he intends that the Motion which he has placed on the Paper shall be amended, I do not propose myself to move the Amendment which was placed upon the Paper by my hon. Friends and myself. We felt bound to place an Amendment on the Paper because there was no indication of action in the Motion which was placed by the Prime Minister. We did not place that Amendment with any desire to divide this House on party

lines. We think that, arising from this report, there are matters which require Government action, and my hon. Friends will move an Amendment later on in the Debate asking for further Government action.
I wish to say that we, too, think how thoroughly painful is this occasion. It is, fortunately, extremely rare that this House has to deal with a matter concerning the honour of any of its Members, and we must all profoundly regret the occasion. I sympathise with the delicate and difficult position of the Prime Minister in having to move this matter concerning those who have worked closely with him in the past, and we all feel the collective feeling of this House for each other. I join in expressing the thanks which are due from this House to the members of the Tribunal for the very fair, very efficient and speedy way in which they carried through a very difficult and onerous task. We had some doubts, on the occasion of the setting up of this Tribunal, as to whether this was the best method that could be adopted. I should like frankly to acknowledge that the Inquiry could not, in my judgment, have been done better. In any case, an inquiry of this kind is bound to raise certain difficulties. I think the Attorney-General indicated some of those difficulties in the fact that while appearing to partake of the nature of a trial of an action at law, it is not in fact a trial of an action at law. Perhaps what makes it a little more difficult, if there were to be any further proceedings, is the fact that the preliminary finding had been come to by an eminent judge and eminent counsel.
In the Motion of the Prime Minister we are asked to consider, and I gather to approve, the report of this Tribunal. We cannot do anything else but accept the report. This House chose the method of Inquiry, and set up a competent Tribunal which has heard and examined the whole evidence and has come to certain findings. The Debate to-day does not raise in any way at all a party issue. It is a mere House of Commons matter, concerning the honour of Members of this House, one of whom was a Privy Councillor, a man who had been a Member of the Government for many years, and the two Members concerned have been found by the Tribunal to have acted in a manner inconsistent with the position


which they held in public life. I agree entirely with the Prime Minister that that alone is very heavy punishment. Other consequences have followed, such as the necessity, which they have rightly realised, that they must vacate their seats, and I do not think that anyone of us would wish, by any word of ours, to add to this punishment. We all deeply regret that a long and distinguished career should have had such an ending. We must all sympathise with the families of the Members who necessarily suffer, though entirely innocent, and I think we all have a very natural reluctance to pass judgment on others. We are all conscious of our own faults; at the same time, we must not allow our personal sympathy for men who are down to lead us to condone in any way the seriousness of the offences committed. It is our clear duty to vindicate the honour of this House.
We owe that duty not only to this House but to democratic government and to the servants of the State. There are many attacks made on democratic government to-day, and any action of the nature of utilisation of a public position for private gain cuts at the root of democratic government. The corruption which accompanies dictatorships is generally hidden; the corruption which enters into a democracy is brought to light and must be dealt with drastically, and if there is any suggestion at all, it is that, as a democratic assembly, we are bound to take action. Consequently, we cannot treat an offence, or a mere mistake, in high quarters less severely than we should do if it occurred among those whose responsibilities are far less. We are proud of the probity of our public servants, and exact rightly a very high standard. We cannot accept a lower one for the Members of this House or the Members who hold positions in Government. A civil servant who communicates Government secrets, even if only by inadvertence, suffers a condign punishment. An employé of the Post Office who gambles is dismissed.
The question of the position of the Official Secrets Act has been raised by the Prime Minister. That Act was passed for the protection of the State, and it has been applied very rigorously. Not long ago Mr. Compton Mackenzie, a distinguished author, was heavily fined

for revealing secrets that were 20 years old. A short time ago a gentleman was prosecuted for having inserted in a book part of a document which was a State document. The Attorney-General has come to his decision in this case as to whether it is right or wrong to prosecute, and I am not here to challenge his decision, but I would ask him, if he comes to speak in this Debate, to make quite clear his reply with regard to what constitutes an offence under the Official Secrets Act. He stated, as I gathered, that an unauthorised communication must be deliberate. I do not find that in the Act. He further stated that anyone who made use of such unauthorised communication could only be prosecuted if that unauthorised communication was an offence under the Official Secrets Act and, therefore, was deliberate. It seems to me that that opens a very, very wide door in the Official Secrets Act, in that those who commit the far worse offence of utilising a communication that has been unauthorised cannot be prosecuted, because those who have communicated it did not do it deliberately. I am bound to say that I think that is a matter on which we ought to hear perhaps further legal opinion. To my mind, it is a far more serious offence to utilise a communication of this kind for private gain than, possibly through inadvertence only, to have made an unauthorised communication.
I have said that I do not wish to say any word of condemnation of the two hon. Members, but I think a word should be said as to where there is a heavy share of blame for the downfall of the right hon. Gentleman, and that is the corrupting influences of wealth and the corrupt influences that emanate from gamblers in the City, those, I think, who have led astray the right hon. Gentleman from the path of public service on which he was set at the outset of his career. This report reveals that a great institution, Lloyd's, which has its legitimate business in insurance, is also a cover for gambling. It is called insurance, but there is no insurable interest. It is as much a gamble as any of those that come under the ban of the law. I understand that the Committee of Lloyd's have requested all underwriters not to accept contingency risks without satisfying themselves that the assured have a legitimate interest and requiring the name of the


assured to appear on the slip. That is good as far as it goes, but it does not, in my opinion, go far enough. I think that all so-called "honour" policies should be made illegal, and also that all insurances based on the effects of possible Government action should be declared illegal, as being a standing invitation to a breach of the Official Secrets Act.
I do not think we always realise enough how finely our public servants stand up to temptation. There are numbers of opportunities, especially to-day, where one has newspapers willing to pay money for sensation and where there are all kinds of interests watching out on the chance of making easy money; but, after all, it is for us to make that temptation as small as possible. It is idle to ignore that in the public Press, not only of the United States of America, but of this country also, there are allegations that there have been other operations on foreknowledge of Government action. I think that a further matter arising from this report which calls for legislation is the system of bank nominees, which goes far to nullify the provisions of the Companies Acts, and we urge that it is high time that there should he a clean-up in the City of London. I am quite aware of the difficulty of deciding where legitimate business ends and gambling begins, but it is idle to deny that there is a widespread feeling that inquiry is needed, not only into Lloyd's, but into the Stock Exchange and the Produce Exchanges.
There have been a good many scandals of one kind and another in recent years. The Hatry case and the pepper case are outstanding. The gambling in armament shares, and especially in the aircraft companies, is another. In the City there are these quasi-public institutions with their legitimate functions, but upon them has been built up a superstructure of mere gambling. I suggest that it is hypocritical for this House to get very excited over football pools, lotteries, and betting on greyhound tracks, and to shut its eyes to the wide facilities for gambling which exist in the City, and of the kind of gambling which not only ruins the individual gambler perhaps, but which may ruin numbers of men, o numbers of businesses, and numbers of national interests. We urge that an inquiry is needed into what goes on in the City with

regard to gambling, not only in the matter of Lloyd's, as I have said, but in the other exchanges. It may be that this kind of thing is inseparable from the present capitalist system. If it is not then I hope hon. Members will point us a way to get rid of these evils. If it is, then the sooner we change the system, the better. We live in times in which the actions of Governments extend more widely into commerce, industry, finance, and trade than ever before, and I have no doubt at all that the influences which emanate from the present City activities, from private interests in the City, are inimical to the public weal and to the work that is done in this House.

4.39 p.m.

Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: The incident which gave rise to the proceedings of the Tribunal of Inquiry was grave, deeply regrettable, and, as the Leader of the Opposition said in his speech, of a kind which is happily rare in our public life. That such incidents are rare is not due to any particularly happy or fortuitous circumstances in which we in this country live, and it is certainly not due, as the Leader of the Opposition has shown, to any lack of temptation to those who are engaged in our public life and in our Civil Service. It is due, in the first place certainly, to the high standard of public duty which prevails in the public service, but it is also due to the fact that the rarity of these occurrences is not regarded by us with passive complacency, and that Members of this House, whether they sit on the Treasury Bench, on the Front Opposition Bench, or on a back bench in any part of this House, are jealous of its honour and quick to act when it is impugned. That is our invulnerable safeguard against chronic scandals and that festering corruption from which other countries have found difficulty in purifying their public life.
In this case, among those whose conduct was impugned, was a Member of the Government whose long record of public service deserves, and always will deserve, our admiration, a man whom no one could work with without appreciating his great qualities and holding him in affection and respect. Therefore, the duty thrown upon the Government was bound to be embarrassing and


painful to each one of its Members, and we who are its opponents ought frankly to recognise that it has not flinched but has acted with decision and thoroughness. In doing so, it was supported by Members of this House without distinction of party, and the only difference of opinion which arose was on the question of the form which the inquiry should take. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland), speaking, I think, with general acceptance in the Debate which took place on setting up this Tribunal, laid down five principles on which, it seemed to us, the inquiry ought to rest. The first was speed of getting to work, the second impartiality, the third thorough and skilful investigation, the fourth full publicity, and the fifth absence of opportunity or temptation for making political capital. I think we must all feel that every one of those requirements has been met by the Tribunal whose Report we are discussing this afternoon, and most amply met, and that the speed, the thoroughness, and the impartiality of the inquiry have profoundly impressed public opinion, both at home and in foreign countries. It has cleared the air of all the foulness which a scandal of this kind, unchecked, would inevitably generate.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) and the hon. Member for Balham and Tooting (Sir A. Butt) are vacating their seats in this House. In doing so, they have certainly not diminished their own dignity, and they have consulted the dignity of the House as a whole. The hon. Member for Balham said, 'How can I ask this House to acquit me?" We are not a court of morals, and, painful as is this discussion to-day, we have not been called upon, I am thankful to say, to judge our fellow Members. Every citizen of this country is entitled to be regarded as innocent until he is proved guilty, and, as the Prime Minister has pointed out this afternoon, no offence has been proved against these two gentlemen.
The Leader of the Opposition has addressed some questions, in the course of his speech, to the Attorney-General. I shall listen with keen attention to the Attorney-General's answer, if he takes part in the Debate. There was one respect in which I thought the Leader of

the Opposition might have gone a little further. I agree with what he said, that the offence of the man who obtains confidential information and uses it for the purpose of private gain is worse than that of the man who imparts it; but the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out that an offence cannot be proved against such a man—indeed the Attorney-General said this yesterday—unless the offence of imparting the information can, first of all, be proved against the man who imparted it.
The Leader of the Opposition said that the Attorney-General yesterday discussed whether such a prosecution was right or wrong. I think he went further. I think he explained to the House that a prosecution was impossible under the wording of the Act as it is at the present time, unless you could produce evidence that a wilful disclosure had been made by one of the parties to the incident. If there is a clear case that one party has obtained, no matter how, secret information and has used it for his private gain, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that it ought to be possible to bring a case against him, whether or not you can prove the case against the man or woman who disclosed the information to him. I hope the Attorney-General will make the situation clear. If I have misstated the case, I hope that he will explain how I have misstated it, and if I have not misstated it I hope that he will tell us whether or not the Government will consider amending legislation.
The public owes, and we in this House in particular owe, a great dealt to the members of the Tribunal for the skill, the speed and the thoroughness with which they worked and for the courage which they showed in expressing their findings with unambiguous directness. Therefore, we cannot do less than accept and approve the report of the Tribunal.

4.48 p.m.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I have been asked specific questions and it may be for the convenience of the House if I reply now.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I think it is a perfect insult that the Attorney-General should get up now. Why not wait?

Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. I think it has usually been the practice of


the House on occasions like this to have the views of the various groups and sections before we have two Government speakers. I might on behalf of my friends have put certain points to the Attorney-General. It seems to me that the interests of debate would be best followed if we adopted the customary practice.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I was anxious to consult the interests of the House, but if I misunderstood them I will give way.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I do not propose to delay the House.

Mr. COCKS: On a point of Order. Does this mean that the Attorney-General will not be allowed to speak again?

Mr. SPEAKER: Objection was taken to his rising so early, and he gave way.

Mr. COCKS: As he has already addressed the House, does it mean that he has lost his right to speak again?

Mr. SPEAKER: No.

Mr. MAXTON: If there is any objection to my rising, I will give way. I will not delay the House on this matter for any length of time. I think the acceptance by the Government of the report of the Tribunal and the acceptance by the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) of the Tribunal's report, and the subsequent intimations of resignation by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Balham and Tooting (Sir A. Butt) leave the House with nothing to do. I should have had certain observations to offer if a different course had been pursued by the Government and the hon. Members concerned, but the attitude which has been adopted in the House seems to me to make unnecessary any of those comments. Moreover, this does not seem to me to be the appropriate occasion for drawing general moral lessons, nor does it seem to me the appropriate occasion for cleaning up the City of London.
I have known the right hon. Member for Derby personally for almost 30 years. I was associated with him for many years in the work of the Labour party when we were both members of that party. At no time during that period do I think I ever agreed with his methods or his conduct, or his general political outlook, and

my friends and I at any time would have regarded it as a good day's political work well done if, in the ordinary rough and tumble of political struggle, we had driven the right hon. Gentleman out of the political influence that he held in this country. To-day, when we see the end of that political career coming in this way, we can only say that we feel profound regret and sorrow, that instead of going down in the struggle as all of us who come into politics may expect to go down, the end of his political career has happened in such a painful and regrettable manner.

4.52 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: As the honourable name of Lloyd's has been bandied about this afternoon, I feel, as one of, I think, only two members of Lloyd's in the House who have done active work for many years with that institution, that I should like to make one or two observations on the working of Lloyd's and on the facts that we have to study in connection with the definite accusation against Lloyd's honourable work, that on such work there has been built a superstructure of gambling. I should like to remove that impression entirely. Had it not been for the way that Lloyd's work, this inquiry could not have come about so quickly. Nobody would have discovered that such a thing was going on, and the disclosures could not have taken place. The very fact that there was a fairly large amount of gambling insurance being done on the Budget aroused suspicions and led to the whole thing coming out.
There are various methods of business which can be used for gambling. People gamble on almost anything, but the Committee of Lloyd's are determined that as far as they are concerned they are going to stamp out any gambling on legitimate methods of business. Insurance against Budget legislation and risks of all sorts is perfectly legitimate business in a great many cases. For instance, a man who is in the sugar trade, the tea trade, the wine trade, or whatever business it may be, may have made forward contracts and the whole of these contracts may be upset because the legislation of this House on the Budget has increased, or is about to increase or diminish, the cost of his commodities. He has a perfectly


legitimate right to insure against his whole business being upset in such an event. The Government might consider closing the market to such risks a short period before the Budget comes on, say, a week before, or some short period like that, thereby cutting down the time during which temptation might be held out to people. That is a matter for consideration later on.
An increase of import duty is a consideration against which many merchants would find it necessary to insure. The outbreak of war between two named nations would upset trade enormously. That is a legitimate risk for the purpose of insurance. The postponing of public functions, court mourning and matters of that kind, make a tremendous difference. There is the non-arrival of goods or vessels on a named date, which is known as a time penalty risk. That, again, is a risk which is an insurable interest. There is the non-arrival of documents on a given date. All these are legitimate subjects for insurance protection. Insurances against increases of taxation and matters of that kind are negligible. It was because a largish amount of insurance was being taken out on this occasion that suspicions were aroused. Anyone who wanted to place £5,000 of Budget insurance risk was a fool if he thought he could get that business done quickly.
I could go along with £750,000 of insurance on a steamer; indeed, I could have six slips for £750,000 each in my hands at Lloyd's and everybody would say that that was perfectly right and no suspicion would be aroused, but if anyone went and asked for £5,000 of Budget insurance, everybody would ask, "What is this about?"
I worked for 10 years at Lloyd's and during the whole of those 10 years I had only twice any slip of insurance risk to show against taxation, and it did not amount to £500. That is a fair sample from one man of the size of the market, and I think I have shown that the amount of this kind of gambling is very small indeed. The Leader of the Opposition read a letter from the Committee of Lloyd's. It showed the steps which the Committee have taken to stamp out as far as possible any possibility of gambling. With that object in view they

require the name of the assured to appear on the slip. That is a very proper precaution. I think that in certain events if the name of the assured is not on the slip misrepresentation undoubtedly takes place. I will not go into details, but it is perfectly obvious that the name of the assured might, in certain eventualities, make a tremendous difference as to the underwriter's assessment of the rate that he ought to receive upon the risk.
Among other insurable risks which one might mention is a particularly interesting one that happened the other day. An inquiry was made as to the rate against His Majesty being married before the Coronation. It might be said that that is a gamble. No such thing. The inquiry was a genuine business inquiry by a well-known manufacturer of china Coronation mugs. If a marriage took place bfore the Coronation two portraits would be necessary on the mugs instead of one, and it would mean that all the expenditure and the work would have been wasted. That, surely, is an insurable risk. If you are going to do away with P.P.I. policies you are going to destroy a great many perfectly legitimate risks. For instance, take the position of drapery firms in the event of Court mourning arising. They lay in stocks of modern fashions and they find in that event that their fashions, their colours and their designs have altered and the work and the money that they have put into their stocks are lost and wasted. They have an insurable risk against things like that.
Again, there are weather policies, the value of which cannot be assessed. They are taken out for agricultural shows and so on, and even the promoters of Socialist fetes like to insure against weather destroying the profits that such fetes may make. That is a perfectly legitimate risk. A large expenditure has been laid out, against the loss of which people are entitled to insure. I could quote a great many more cases, but it is not necessary to do so; but policy-proof-of-interest insurance is an essential part of the business of insurance, both for companies and for Lloyd's. It is especially so in the case of marine insurance, where there are disbursements, increased values of cargoes, and so on. In such cases it is very difficult to estimate the amount of


the possible loss, and so policy-proof-of-interest insurance is necessary. I would recommend the Opposition to look at the legislation which already exists to deal with this matter, such as the Gambling Policies Act of 1909. A tremendous amount of gambling has been cut out by that Act, and the small amount which still remains can be dealt with by the Committee of Lloyd's. On Lloyd's, at any rate, there is the smallest amount of gambling of any sort. There is much worse gambling in commodities and on the Stock Exchange than anything that takes place to-day at Lloyd's. In explaining some of the difficulties in which legitimate business will find itself if action is taken on the lines suggested by the Opposition, I hope I have made it clear to the House that the honoured name of Lloyd's still stands high in the business life of this country.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. GALLACHER: The evidence submitted to the Tribunal, and the Report presented to the Tribunal on the basis of that evidence, call for plain speaking. Two Members of this House are being placed in the dock before the House and before the country. The one thing that the House has to do is to accept without any hesitation the findings of the Tribunal, and, on the basis of those findings, to make the strongest possible condemnation of the Members affected—Members who have shown, according to the evidence, an outstanding case of moral and political decay. But it is not enough to condemn these men, important as that is. Everyone can only hope that this example of moral collapse will be a warning to those who have been travelling, or are attempting to travel, the road which has been travelled by the ex-Colonial Secretary, in whom I am specially interested.
It would be folly to condemn the ex-Colonial Secretary as though this particular act on which the Tribunal has founded a decision had been some sudden aberration, dissociated from his past or from his colleagues. What has the genesis of this present Government to do with this moral and political collapse that is evident on the part of the ex-Colonial Secretary? Has the formation of the National Government nothing to do with it? Here is one who, we are told, was an honoured Member of this House. Men

and women suffering in poverty spent their shillings and sixpences and pennies to make him a leader of his union, and you corrupt him and take him over there. Has that nothing to do with what has been going on? Not just now should he have been prosecuted, but when he openly, callously and deliberately betrayed those who had spent their money and pinned their life's hopes on him.
The Prime Minister tells us about the blare of publicity in the Press. Is he the only one that suffered from a blare of publicity in the Press? There was the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), there was myself, and there were others. Did anyone ever get up and protest against the blare of publicity, the lies and slanders that were made against us? What are you dealing with? You are dealing with corruption. Every Member who comes here immediately has temptation put into his path, and the very men to whom you are most considerate are the men who are subject to corruption. But, while there may be one or two in the ranks of our movement who can always be corrupted, because the weakness is there, the main body of this party will never be corrupted, try as you may. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which party?"] This party here. It may be information to hon. Members opposite to know that I am a member of this party, and pay my dues regularly to this party—the Labour party. But the Lord President of the Council and the man who wept for himself in this House were the men who were responsible for getting me denied my rights within the movement.
When you are attacking the Communists, remember that in 1921 the Communist party of this country performed a miracle such as the world has never known before. We succeeded, according to an intelligent jury, in libelling the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) by calling him a traitor. At that time, unfortunately, he was receiving support from many Members on this side of the House in every attack he made on us. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs will tell you that it was possible for him and others to be corrupted when the War was on. The opportunities were put in front of us, but we refused to be corrupted. Then the Press came out with a blare of publicity to say that we were corrupt any-


way, that we were engaged in what right hon. Gentlemen on the other side call subversive activities. But we were always open; we were very simple. When the police came to ask us, "Did you do this, that or the other?" we replied, "Yes." We were so honest. We did not know that we had been too honest until we found ourselves in gaol.
What was behind our subversive activities? Look back in the files of the Press, and you will find references to German gold. Is there an honest man anywhere? No, not according to your standard. When the Germans were defeated, and had no more gold, there were still subversive activities, and it became Moscow gold. The Moscow gold has gone the way of the German gold, and I still carry on my subversive activities, but the kind-hearted Chancellor of this country provides the gold. If the German gold and the Moscow gold had been less of legend and more of substance, I should probably have been on the way to dealing on the Stock Exchange myself.
I want to return to the question of the association of the ex-Colonial Secretary with the Government, and to the fact that the Government was started on a basis of the betrayal of the working-class movement of this country; and, where you have a Government built up on a basis of betrayal, every encouragement is given for the development of corruption. Therefore, while I condemn in the strongest possible manner the ex-Colonial Secretary, and while I am 'prepared to take the most offensive action against him because of his whole career, which has only culminated now, I declare it to be a shame on the part of the House that it can condemn the ex-Colonial Secretary and leave his colleagues alone. His colleagues are associated with him, and have known of his conduct all along—all of them. He talked of his vices, "if they are vices," but whatever he was addicted to in the way of gambling or anything else, they were all conscious of it and encouraged him in it, because they knew that, the more he played about and frequented racecourses, and the more he got into society, the more he was in their hands. If you could get the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs and other hon. Members here to come into your net—a

tea-party here, a tea-party there—you would corrupt them if they came in contact with you, and you know it.
You corrupted the ex-Colonial Secretary. He was once an engine driver—an honest occupation, an occupation to be proud of. He left that because his colleagues had confidence in him, and he was made a leader of a great trade union, a man in whom his colleagues had confidence. What went wrong with him to corrupt him? He did not suddenly develop corruption in himself, but he got into contact, as a result of being a trade union leader, with captains of industry, and politicians representing captains of industry. They took him to the bar and they patted him on the hack—[An HON. MEMBER: "And dressed him up."] The expert in corruption may well smile. He knows his own handiwork, and, when his handiwork is cast out, he is ready to go on with the job with somebody else. Members on this side of the House have had a great lesson; let us hope that it will affect every one of us.
The working-class movement ought to be protected against the corruptive influences of capitalism. What does getting on in life mean? It means "Get property, get money, get into society." There are some of us here whom all the gold that was ever minted would not induce to leave our class, because we are proud of our class. It is the only constructive class in the country. Take away the Royal family, the aristocracy, the Stock Exchange and all the great financiers and ship them off to Timbuctoo, and society would go on. Industry would go on. There would be no corruption. But by the waving of some magic wand get rid of the working class and where are you? The ex-Colonial Secretary has gone and we must see that the Government of which he was a part goes. I do not want to deal with individual Members of the Government, but the Lord President of the Council should be associated with the ex-Colonial. Secretary and should be with him now. The ex-Colonial Secretary was always known as the "Artful Dodger" in the Labour movement, but the Lord President of the Council was a Fagin who knew how to dangle before the eyes of his victims the delights of illicit activities. "A career" was always on his tongue. Never any suggestion of coming into the Labour


party to get an opportunity of fighting the workers' enemies, but "careers." We do not want careers. We want a great united movement which will put those responsible for corruption out of business, and we will put them out of business.
I want to make a few remarks about the Attorney-General. I have never studied law in the schools or technical colleges, but I study it quite a lot from practical experience in the dock. I have never heard, in any case with which I have been associated, such remarks as were made by the Attorney-General yesterday. I never heard such palpable absurdities. There has been talk about the necessity of being soft-hearted when a man is down. I am a bit of an Irishman and there is a story of an Irishman who knocked a man down and, when he was told to let him get up, he said "No, I will not. I had too much trouble in getting him down." That is how I feel about the ex-Colonial Secretary. I am not soft-hearted, but the Attorney-General seems to think that we on this side are soft-headed when he comes forward with such arguments as he presented yesterday. Lawyers are chuckling at the best legal joke for years. They are laughing at the Attorney-General. How can he tell us that it would not be fair to have a prosecution because all the material has been before the Tribunal and everyone knows all about it? What sort of story is that? We were not told that it was not desirable to prosecute Dr. Ruxton. Was there a man or woman on the jury who had not been reading all about it day after day?
Can the hon. and learned Gentleman be serious in putting forward such a proposition, that there is no evidence to go to a court, and that the Tribunal has accepted all kinds of stories which would not be admissible in a court? The Tribunal was composed of a Judge and two barristers, men of experience in all that is acceptable in the Law Courts. Do they not tell us in the report that they very carefully swept aside all that was not permissible and sifted out the evidence that was permissible and on that basis came to their decision? The Attorney-General's statement yesterday is an insult to the Judge and the two barristers who weighed the evidence and decided that there had been an unauthorised disclosure.
The Attorney-General says that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty. Are we to understand that a man has to be proved guilty before he can be arrested and put in prison? I have been arrested on many occasions, and the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs and I have been in prison in cells next to one another. We were held there week after week, though we had never been proved guilty. When we were tried, I was found guilty and my hon. Friend was found innocent. What sort of story is this that a man is innocent until he is found guilty? That is what we are generally told but, when an act is committed and some one is suspected of it, he is accused and then the onus is on the authorities of preparing the case against him, and the jury has the responsibility of deciding on it.
I demand that these men be tried. It is the duty of the House to accept the report of the inquiry and condemn these men and compel them to resign. At the same time they have a right to appeal. If they feel that there is any possibility of injustice, they cannot be condemned for life. With all the corruption that is going on, with all the insidious and insistent corruption that one feels, one gets very suspicious that there are reasons why the Government wants no prosecution. It may be that, if there is a prosecution, other things will come out. The hon. Member for Balham and Tooting (Sir A. Butt) is right. He demands a prosecution, and I back up the demand. He wants it in the hope that he will be cleared; I want it in the hope that both of them will go to gaol as a warning and an example to the people of the country and to Members of this House. But a prosecution is demanded. The people of the country have demanded a prosecution. I ask the Attorney-General to give up this foolish playing about with phrases which have no meaning, and to take the responsibility of making a prosecution against these men on the basis of the Official Secrets Act. I demand a prosecution in the name of the people of this country. Men and women in buses and trams, wherever you meet them, want to know why others are prosecuted and these are not. They want to know, down in the south where there have been acts of sabotage, why a number of shop stewards against whom there is nothing are dismissed from their jobs because of


their Labour sympathies. They want to know why men have been thrown into prison on the most circumstantial evidence. Are you afraid of something coming out? Make a prosecution or, if you do not, open your prison doors.
If you are not prepared to make a prosecution of these two, there is not a man who should be in prison. Men have been hanged on less circumstantial evidence than you have in this case. Deny it if you can. Make a prosecution and, when you make it, understand that you are making a prosecution which will expose and end the rule of the National Government, which was founded on corruption and the betrayal of the working class. [Interruption.] Laugh at your handiwork. The ex-Colonial Secretary was not laughing when he walked out to-day. The other fellow was not laughing when he sat there. [An HON. MEMBER: "You were the only one to laugh."] Yes, I had the right to laugh. For years and years he carried on every kind of duplicity, and when any charge was brought against him he could always get out of it by saying, "It is the Communists. I have not done anything wrong; it is these dirty Communists who are spreading these stories." It was riot the Communists who spread the stories about the Budget leakage, and he cannot use the Communists to-day to get out of that. What a happy man he would have been if he could have got up there and, instead of talking himself to tears, an old practice, had said, "Oh, it is these dirty Communists who spread the story." He could not do that to-day, and now he is finished. I want to say that if there is a prosecution—

An HON. MEMBER: "Swine."

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: On a point of Order. Has an hon. Member the right to call an hon. Member who is speaking a swine?

HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): It is certainly not Parliamentary.

HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."

Mr. J. GRIFFITHS: May I ask that the hon. Member who made use of that unparliamentary expression should be named?

Colonel MASON: I apologise to you, Sir, for using that unparliamentary word.

Mr. J. GRIFFITHS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has apologised to you, Sir. May I ask you to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to apologise to the House?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must withdraw the expression formally.

Colonel MASON: In deference to your Ruling, Sir, I withdraw the expression forthwith.

Mr. GALLACHER: I know that I have a very provocative manner, and therefore I did not myself feel like taking any exception to the remark. So long as such remarks are directed towards me, it can be taken for granted that I am free from corruption. I want to demand a prosecution, but while I demand it, I must make it clear that a prosecution would so expose this National Government, which is founded upon corruption and has carried on a career of corruption as evidenced by subsidies and what not—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about murders in Russia?"]. I am dealing with this particular matter, but if there is any occasion to make a discussion on Russia, please arrange with your Front Bench, and I shall be only too happy to discuss it. If there is a prosecution, this Government, which has been based upon corruption and which threatens the country with wholesale corruption and destruction, will come to a speedy and a well-deserved end. I am glad that the ex-Colonial Secretary has gone from the scene, and I shall be happier still, a thousand times happier, when his colleagues have been forced to follow him into obscurity.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARMENT (Sir John Simon): I beg to move, in line 2, to leave out the words, "now considered" and to add instead thereof the word "accepted."
I have no desire to speak in the Debate, but it may be for the convenience of the House if I now move from this bench the Amendment to the Motion on the Paper which the Prime Minister indicated at the end of his speech.

Amendment agreed to.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, in line 2, after the word last added, to add:


and this House, in view of the definite findings of the Tribunal and the disclosures of the gambling practices in the city of London, calls upon His Majesty's Government to take appropriate action.
I understand that the procedure which has been adopted is for the general convenience of the House, and that an opportunity will be taken by the Attorney-General at a later stage in the proceedings to answer any points raised by previous speakers. I should like at the outset to add my word to the commendation of the Tribunal of Inquiry uttered by the Leader of the Opposition. Probably, with the exception of the Attorney-General, I spent more time during the sessions of that Tribunal at the Law Courts than did any other hon. Member of this House. While I was one of those Members who most strongly believed that the proper course of procedure in the sifting of the allegations was not to set up a judicial Tribunal, but a Committee of Inquiry, I want frankly to concede that members of the Tribunal sitting at the Law Courts fearlessly probed to the uttermost all the evidence brought before them, and, in my judgment, without fear or favour or regard to those in high places. They pointed in their report to a Cabinet Minister, to a wealthy Member of Parliament, and to a wealthy newspaper owner as the guilty parties chiefly concerned, but they also referred in scathing terms to the evidence offered by a number of lesser fry, some of whom they have openly accused of perjury.
We have heard nothing whatever today as to whether any action is to be taken with regard to those who openly and deliberately perjured themselves in the Law Courts during the hearing of the evidence on the Budget leakage. This House, obviously, does not desire to seize any opportunity to show vindictiveness to individuals. It is clear that there is a general consensus of opinion that the two Members of this House concerned have been punished probably more terribly than by any punishment that could be inflicted by a prosecution in the Law Courts, and as far as we on this side are concerned we have no desire whatever to add to the misery and wretchedness which these hon. Members must be suffering. But there must obviously be no suspicion created in this

House or outside it of any condonation by the Members of this House of the practices, not the offences, of individuals, which have aroused outside this House wholesale condemnation in the Press, in the street, and wherever men and women discuss public affairs.
There must be no suspicion of any affaire Stravisky in this land, and it is, therefore, our duty to see to it that not only the two hon. Members found guilty should resign—that is a small matter—but that this House should take whatever steps are open to it to erase from our public life the practices and courses of conduct, which, as I hope to show before I sit down, are making the name of the City of London stink in the nostrils of decent men and women in this country. It has been said that those who enter this beggar-my-neighbour system and are robbed by more cunning manipulators than they are themselves deserve all they get. In this relentless financial war dog eats dog, and we are not very much concerned whether brokers get the better of underwriters or underwriters get the better of brokers. What we and, I hope, every Member of this House are concerned about is the gambling system, the something-for-nothing system which has grown up, not only in Lloyd's and the Stock Exchange, and the produce market, but, as I hope to show, in the banking system and all over the money market, and which has not only grown up in recent years, but is a part of the financial business system which the vast majority of the Members of this House still politically and economically support.
The late Lord Russell of Killowen, when he was Lord Chief Justice, addressed some stinging observations on the commercial morality of the City of London which ought to be remembered. Speaking on the 9th November, 1898, he said:
Fraud is rampant, fraud of a most dangerous kind, widespread in its operations, touching all classes, involving great pecuniary loss to the community, loss which is borne by those who are least able to bear it.
That is not the comment of a Socialist or a Communist, but of a Lord Chief Justice, made deliberately in the City of London to an audience of those who were best able to appreciate the truth of his observations. Since 1898 we have


had a steady stream of Factors, Hooleys, and Lee Bevans. Year after year there has been some larger vulture who has succeeded in skimming off the savings of hundreds and thousands of poor people who can ill afford to lose this money. No one can dispute what Hooley did to the Lancashire cotton industry. The effects are felt even to this hour in the industry. Millions of money were swept away almost in a night. The Balfour Committee set up by this House reported that:
It was a disquieting phenomenon that a great staple industry should fall so easy a victim to the speculative company promoter.
And the Macmillan Committee, which reported in 1931, said that in one year, 1928, when investments amounting to £117,000,000 were put in by the British people, at least 47 per cent. of it had disappeared, vanished utterly, in 30 months. Now another corner of the curtain has been lifted on the doings of the underworld. One Sunday newspaper described the city as a casino. On page 38 of the report of the Tribunal you will find a financier, a company promoter, promoting companies with £500,000 capital. He himself had no assets whatever beyond a court judgment. He is described by the report as an impecunious speculator. Yet this impecunious speculator with no assets can walk into Lloyd's and speculate £2,500, which he has not got, upon alleged Budget contingencies. On page 97 of the evidence given before the Tribunal you will find people betting on a rise of Income Tax who have never paid any Income Tax at all, and who admitted in court that they had never been called upon to pay Income Tax. On page 88 you will find a bank this time intimating that it wanted a policy for £4,000 against a rise in Income Tax for a client, and that this transaction had to be put through in the bank's name there was to be no disclosure of the client's name.
On page 135 you will find a Cabinet Minister netting £632 9s. clear on a bet of a General Election being held in 1935, when he was a member of the Cabinet which presumably had something to say in fixing the time at which the General Election would be held. On page 131 you will find a Member of Parliament netting in one year £12,343 on Budget contingencies. The hon. Member for

Clackmannan and East Stirling (Mr. MacNeill Weir) appears to have been premature when he apologised for certain references to Members of Parliament hurrying out on Budget day to speculate on the Budget. In the light of later findings his apology has some appearance of having been premature. We find in full swing a great system of gambling on what are called honour policies, unstamped, unenforceable at law, with no personal interest of the assuror. Other people are chivvied off the streets, football pools are subject to the anxious attention of this House, church raffles frowned upon and banned, but in the City of London, the heart of the Empire, there is a wholesale and retail system of gambling upon contingencies, in which the bettor has not the slightest discoverable insurable interest.
Since the report the Committee of Lloyd's has bustled forward to say that upon their honour there would be no more of this contingency gambling. They are going to take steps to enforce a rule to prevent it for the future. We have had these promises before. In 1720, that is a long time ago, an inquiry was authorised by this House into the projects carried on by subscription in and about the City of London and Westminster—activities dangerous to trade and to the subjects of the Kingdom. In 1734 an Act of Parliament was passed, and for all I know to the contrary, is still on the Statute Book, for the prohibition of all insurances on the course of the public funds. In 1769, 35 years afterwards, we find that gambling policies are still issued at Lloyd's on the prospect of two Peers of the Realm losing their heads within a year, and also on dates for the dissolution of Parliament. I regret to say that most of these speculators seem to have been Scotsmen. In the same year, as we are informed in the official record of Lloyd's, all the ingenuity of the professional stock jobber was devoted to manipulating the prices of the public funds by spreading false reports, the suppression of news and every other method that unscrupulous rapacity could suggest.
That is ancient history. We come to 1909, when an Act of Parliament was passed to prevent the issue of gambling policies. That Act was passed, it is true, but it dealt with marine insurance only. Every other form of speculation and gambling at Lloyd's is still permissible.


There is no collective guarantee behind a policy at Lloyd's. There are only individual assurances granted by the individual assuror. I am told that there has been no failure for 40 years at Lloyd's to implement a promise. If that he so then there is more reason on the part of the Committee of Lloyd's to agree with the Amendment which we are asking the House to accept. We are not accusing Lloyd's or any member of Lloyd's of defaulting. We are prepared to pay a tribute to them that they seem to act on a higher standard or code of honour than do their comperes in the United States of America, but at Lloyd's an individual assuror may accept more than he is able to fulfil. They certainly have in the past, even down to this hour, been engaged in speculating upon contingencies in which they have no insurable interest one way or the other, and as far as Lloyd's are concerned the case is proved that an inquiry ought to be held. I trust that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to indicate that the Government are prepared to accept our Amendment.
But it is not only Lloyd's. If that were the case it would be a small matter. We come to the responsible banking systems of the country. Here we find a curious state of affairs. Under the Companies Act of 1929 every limited liability company must keep a register of its members, the names and addresses of shareholders, open for inspection. But what do we find the banks doing now? For the last six years or so they have been busily engaged in erecting a system of what they call banking nominees. Large blocks of shares in companies are held by these nominees of banks, and it is now virtually impossible in the case of many public companies to discover who are the beneficial owners of the shares. References were made during the recent Inquiry to the fact that the local manager of the Bank of Athens was busily engaged in arranging that speculators who were taking out policies on Budget risks should not have their names and addresses disclosed, but that the policies should be held by nominees of the bank.
There is an even more sinister and dangerous feature of this nominee system. Let us suppose that the director of a public company obtains advance information as to what are the prospects of

his company paying a dividend. He knows before outside speculators what his company is likely to do. Through this nominee system the director can speculate in the shares of his own company; he can buy and sell through bank nominees, and his name is never disclosed. He can raise or depress the shares of his own company and make profits in the process. I see an ex-Financial Secretary to the Treasury in his place. He has repeatedly asked questions in the House as to whether the Government would take steps to stop this nominee system by which the Companies Act is being rendered vain and ineffective. His questions have been dodged by the President of the Board of Trade and he has obtained no satisfactory answer, although the facts are admitted. I submit it is high time that this practice, which is being deliberately carried on by the great banking corporations of this country, should be stopped by the House of Commons in the interests of public morality.
The Provident and Friendly Societies Act, with which I am even more familiar, is also being dodged. They have already discovered a trick. They have obtained a legal judgment under which they are compelled to give only the names of the shareholders and not their addresses. We have had comments by judges in the High Court to the effect that the Act is being destroyed through this evasion, which is being carried on in a wholesale and retail manner in this and every other city in the land. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer desired, I could give him references to judgments in the Court on this matter. I believe I am right in saying that if the members could get the addresses of their fellow members, steps would be taken to clean up some of the less reputable concerns which are now operating safely because they are not compelled to give the addresses of the members.
To-day at Question Time the Prime Minister answered a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) about the Newfoundland loans. I accept at once the Prime Minister's assurance that the firm of brokers mentioned in the American journal "Time" deny they were concerned in speculation on advanced news in connection with the Newfoundland loans. I would beg the Chancellor, however, to set somebody to


the task of looking up the movements of two Newfoundland stocks prior to the Government's announcement on the eve of 21st November, 1933, of their intention to convert the old stocks and to give the holders new stocks in their place. I am not depending upon the American magazine at all, and these facts which I am about to give can be checked by anyone who will refer to the files of the "Times." There were no dealings in the market in this 3 per cent. Newfoundland stock for three or four months prior to the Government's announcement. Then on 20th November, two days prior to the Government's announcement, it suddenly without any excuse became an active market. Any number of people was prepared to buy this 3 per cent. stock and it rose in one day—

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): To which stock is the right hon. Gentleman referring?

Mr. JOHNSTON: The 3 per cent. loan. On 20th November it rose from 70½ to 72. On 22nd November, when the Government's announcement was made, it jumped miraculously to 95. My point is that for months there was no movement, and that two days prior to the Government's introduction of the Bill, this stock suddenly became an active market. I would also like the Chancellor to be good enough to have inquiries made into the operations in connection with the 3½ per cent. Newfoundland stock. On 31st October transactions took place in this stock at 79¾. On 15th November it jumped to 81; on 16th November to 81¼, and on 21st November it was 83. Here again there was a slow but steady increase in the value of this stock for several days prior to the Government's announcement. I repeat that we accept unreservedly the Prime Minister's denial that the firm of brokers mentioned in this magazine had any dealings in these stocks, but I beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer to cause inquiries to be made into the sudden and inexplicable price movement and the active operations in the market several days prior to the announcement made by the Government that they proposed to take over the Newfoundland stocks.

Mr. ALBERY: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that matter, he would

make his point much better if he would quote the marking of the dealings on those days.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I do not intend to be led into that, and I have very skilled advice that I should not be led into it. I prefer to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to cause inquiries to be made, and if the hon. Member has any advice he can give to the Chancellor in this matter, I am sure the Chancellor would be glad to have it in due course. There are also operations in the produce market which ought to receive anxious inquiry from all sections of the House concerned with the morality, such as it may be, of our commercial system. Nobody can justify what happened on the pepper market and nobody attempts to justify it. Nearly £1,000,000 of capital disappeared in a few months and surely nobody is prepared to justify that. There are sudden increases in prices, there is bleeding of the consumer, there is irregularity of supplies and there are cheating and finessing in the necessities of life of our people. Surely all that has nothing to do with ordinary trading, with buying and selling and with the supplying of markets. How far are these practices necessary and how far are they pure gambling? How far are they hostile and derogatory to the more honest and useful processes in our commercial system? Surely there ought to be inquiries made into these matters.
In this country a great block of our insurance business is already more or less subject to Government intervention and control. There is an Industrial Assurance Commission which has the duty of supervising types of policy and the interests of the insured. It has the duty of looking after the interests of the policy-holders. If it be right that the great Prudential Assurance Company, so far as its policies under £300 are concerned, should be subject to careful scrutiny by a Government official, on what grounds should its operations in the case of policies above £300 escape supervision? In the United States they have a system—and I am not now seeking to justify it—whereby there is an insurance commissioner for each State in the Union whose duty it is to supervise all types of insurance and to protect the insured and the insurer alike. Whether that is the best system or not, I am not


prepared to say. My own view is that the whole business should be converted into a public service. In so far as it has any utility, it ought to be run as a public service and in so far as it has no utility and is a pure gamble or speculation, a "beggar-my-neighbour" business, it ought to be stopped forthwith.
All the mischances and hazards of life ought to be shared co-operatively. That is the view held by those who sit on these benches. We ought to share in each others misfortunes. We ought to protect the merchant who adventures in the national interest. We know that great blocks of our trade could never be carried on unless the venturer or merchant had adequate safeguards and guarantees. But the practices disclosed in the Tribunal Inquiry, the practices condemned by the Balfour Committee, by the Macmillan Report, by Lord Russell of Killowen, the late Lord Chief Justice of England, and by every decent man and woman in the land, are growing day by day and week by week in strength, and spreading into places where they have never been before. Surely, while there is yet time and for the sake of the good name of this land, all this calls for an urgent inquiry set up by the Government, and that is what we press upon the House by our Amendment.

6.19 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I have been asked two or three questions which I shall try to deal with shortly at this stage of the Debate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. T. Johnston) asked me whether I had considered proceedings for perjury against certain witnesses whose evidence was adversely commented upon and who were not believed by the Tribunal. I have considered that matter. The House will, of course, appreciate that it is one thing for a judge or tribunal to say, having heard conflicting witnesses, that they disbelieve particular witnesses, but it is quite a different thing to have evidence available which is likely to lead to a conviction for perjury. I have considered the comments made by the Tribunal on various witnesses very carefully and I am satisfied that there is no evidence which would justify proceedings of the kind suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr.

Gallacher) addressed some remarks to me but as I feel that the gap between our legal opinions is, if possible, even wider than that between our political opinions, it would be hopeless for me to attempt to bridge that gap in the time at my disposal.
I was asked two questions by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. First, he asked what was my justification for stating yesterday that, in my opinion, for an offence under Section 2 (1) of the Official Secrets Act to be proved, the communication must be deliberate, and he pointed out that the word "deliberate" does not actually occur in that Section. It is, of course, the general basis of our criminal law that in order to establish an offence you must establish evil intent. It is true there are certain offences which have been made offences by Statute, in regard to which it has been held that evil intent is not a necessary ingredient. I am, however, completely satisfied that evil intent is a necessary ingredient in the offence created by Section 2 (1) of the Official Secrets Act, and that is my justification for what I said yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman also drew attention to what I said yesterday to the effect that the offence of receiving under Section 2 (2) of the Act could not be proved unless the evidence established as a condition precedent an offence under Section 2 (1). The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) referred to the same point. That is my view of the Act as it stands, and if any hon. or right hon. Gentleman cares to look at it again he will find that in Section 2 (2) the relevant words are:
If any person receives any … information knowing or having reasonable ground to believe at the time when he receives it, that the … information is communicated to him in contravention of this Act"—
That I think supports the proposition which I made. I agree with the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman that it discloses a possible gap in the Act. That is to say, it leaves uncovered a case in which somebody gets possession, say of a document through the inadvertent omission or act of the person to whom it was entrusted—a case where someone, outside that area, gets possession of a document, realises that it is a secret document of which he ought


not to be in possession, and proceeds either to communicate it to somebody else or to make improper use of it. I think there is a gap there. I do not want to state too categorically at the moment how far the gap goes or what would be the proper method of dealing with it, but I certainly give the House an undertaking that I will consider that position and see whether the law requires amendment in order to deal with that matter.

Mr. ATTLEE: That gap would also extend to someone who deliberately made a public servant drunk so that he gave away secrets and who then used the information so obtained. Again, no proceedings could be taken against him?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think that is so. I do not want to deliver myself of a dictum on the effect of intoxication on the question of whether an offence has or has not been committed. It is an exceedingly difficult branch of the law, although I think principles have been laid down on the question by higher authorities. But I think there is nothing between us. The point is clear. A communication might easily get out, in circumstances which would not create an offence under Section 2 (1) as the Act stands. A person might get the information and make improper use of it, and as the Act stands it would not, I think, be an offence. It is that possible gap which I am undertaking to look into, in order to see whether action should be taken.

6.25 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I do not, I am afraid, accept the view which the hon. and learned Gentleman has put forward in regard to the Official Secrets Act. There are two points with which I want to deal regarding the advice which he has tendered to the House and the action which he has decided to take. I realise that he had an extremely difficult and onerous task in arriving at a decision on this matter, which is of very grave importance, and the gravity of the matter is my excuse for venturing to set my opinion against his on the interpretation of the Statute and on the action to be taken. I think it very desirable that, however much sympathy we may feel for those people who are suffering as a result of the decision of the Tribunal, we should not allow our

action to be determined by that sympathy because those two persons are Members of this House. It is of the utmost importance that precisely the same measures should be meted out to those two individuals as would be meted out to office boys in the Treasury, did a similar occurrence happen in respect of them. Let me first deal with the question of the Official Secrets Act. The first observation of the hon. and learned Gentleman with which I differ is his statement that evil intent must be shown under Section 2 (1). I gather that he does not mean evil intent in the ordinary way in which that phrase is used, and that he means the mens rea.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My remarks related to justifying the word "deliberate," which I used yesterday and which was quoted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

Sir S. CRIPPS: People sometimes misunderstand the words "evil intent." I knew that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not mean it in the way in which it might be understood, and I therefore ventured to correct him in case a mistaken idea should get wider publicity. His contention is that under Section 2 (1) you must not only prove the communication but prove that the communication was purposely made. He stated that that was the ordinary implication as regards a common law crime, but he also observed that there were statutory offences in connection with which that requirement had not been imposed. Now this is a statutory offence with which we are dealing, and one has to look at the words of the Statute to see what was the intention of Parliament in laying down this circumscription of this new crime. One thing clear is that no such words as "deliberately" or "with evil intent" are inserted before the word "communicates" and it would have been perfectly simple to have done so had that been the intention. Again, if one looks at Section 12, which is the definition Section, it becomes clear from the part dealing with communicating and receiving that the expression is not limited to an intentional or deliberate communication, because the expression "communicate" is said to include
any communicating, whether in whole or in part, and whether … the information itself or the substance effect or description thereof only be communicated or received.


Those words show that the word "communicates" used in Section 2 (1) is intended to have the widest possible meaning, and I suggest that even if it were not possible or likely that in a case like this the communication could be proved to be deliberate, yet it would be perfectly proper to bring it before a court to test whether or not this came within the Act. The hon. and learned Gentleman is not asked to decide this question. All he is asked to do is to say whether it is a proper matter to go to the court for decision. I must say that I sympathise with one very small part of what was said by the hon. Member for Balham and Tooting (Sir A. Butt), and that was that he wished the right to be tried in a court. That is a right to which he is entitled, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) is entitled to that right if he wishes it. The fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that it is difficult to prove the case has no relevance as regards the right of those accused persons to be tried if they desire to be put upon their trial.
The difficulty of proof, no doubt at the present moment, may seem to some lawyers fairly considerable, but let it be borne in mind that no inquiries have been made as far as I am aware as regards what other evidence can be obtained. This matter has not gone to the Director of Public Prosecutions to see what other evidence is available. The only thing that has been done is to hold a court of inquiry. It has done its best, it has sent for everybody who, it thought, might be useful witnesses, but it has not been able to use the resources of Scotland Yard to make inquiries whether other witnesses can be obtained from people at the golf club during the Easter vacation and other people who were about the Colonial Office, and matters of that type. Clearly, inquiries might show that there is further evidence. It seems to me that the question for the hon. and learned Gentleman to decide merely comes to this: Suppose he had been sent this dossier of evidence, with no decisions upon it at all, from a source which he considered absolutely reliable, would he not then have sent it to the Director of Public Prosecutions in order that he might initiate a prosecution? I venture to think that if this had never come before a Tribunal but the information had been supplied there would

not have been the slightest doubt, in the case of a low placed civil servant, that a prosecution would have been initiated. That is the test which, in my submission, the hon. and learned Gentleman has to apply.
Let me come to the second paragraph of the Section. The Attorney-General says that you cannot bring proceedings against Mr. Cosher Bates or the hon. Member for Balham and Tooting unless you could first prove there had been a breach of Sub-section (1). Again I join issue. The Section, omitting the immaterial words, reads as follows:
If any person receives any information knowing or having reasonable ground to believe, at the time when he receives it, that the information is communicated in contravention of this Act, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour.
It is only a reasonable belief that it was communicated in contravention of the Act that has to be proved. Nobody has to prove it was communicated in contravention of the Act. It is entirely a question of whether Mr. Bates or the hon. Member for Balham and Tooting thought, when they got the information, that it was being communicated in contravention of the Act. It is absolutely certain, as certain, I should think, as anything can be, that if these people got the information and utilised it, as they did, they must have known it was being communicated in contravention of the Act—certainly the hon. Member for Balham and Tooting, who cannot say he does not know anything about the Official Secrets Act. Every Member of the House is aware of it. It is definitely not a question of the prosecutor proving that it is being received in contravention of the Act. It is a question of whether at the time the man believed it was being given him in contravention of the Act.
Therefore, it would be perfectly possible to prosecute the receiver of the information even if you do not prosecute the giver of the information. I am not suggesting that that course should be adopted, but I do deny the premise of the hon. and learned Gentleman that you cannot proceed under Sub-section (2) unless you can convict under Sub-section (1). That clearly must be wrong, and I think the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to reconsider this matter in the light of what I suggest to him is a perfectly clear interpretation of Sub-section


(2) of Section 1. The guilty mind in the second Sub-section is the mind that believes it has received information in contravention of the Act. That amount of guilt must be shown. That is almost easy to assume if the person gets information to which he knows he is not entitled, from a person who, he knows, is not entitled to give it to him.
So much on the question of whether there ought to be a prosecution in consequence of the Tribunal Report. There is one other observation that I wish to make on that. There seems to be some implication in what the hon. and learned Gentleman said yesterday that the Tribunal have suggested that this communication might have been casual and not purposeful. If one looks on pages 17 and 23 of the Tribunal's Report one finds that there is no suggestion of that sort at all. After saying on page 17:
Mr. Bates was also in our view guilty of misstating and suppressing the truth and for the same reason"—
which is a fairly powerful statement to he said about a witness, although the hon. and learned Gentleman does not consider it sufficient for a charge of perjury—the Tribunal says:
Having regard to the matters set out above we, having heard the witnesses and observed their demeanour, find that there was an unauthorised disclosure of information relating to the Budget for the present year by Mr. J. H. Thomas to Mr. Bates, and that use was made of this information by Mr. Bates for the purpose of his private gain.
I do not know how anyone can say more strongly or with more intention to show that it was a deliberate disclosure. The Tribunal says that someone has made an unauthorised disclosure of information relating to the Budget, and the implication is that, unless he was acting in his sleep or under the influence of drink, it was a disclosure of which he was conscious, and, if conscious, undoubtedly deliberate. Exactly the same applies if one reads the paragraph on page 23, where the Tribunal, after saying that they do not believe the explanation which was given by the hon. Member for Balham and Tooting, states:
On the contrary we find that there was an unauthorised disclosure by Mr. J. H. Thomas to Sir Alfred Butt of information relating to the Budget for the present year.
Anybody who reads the rest of the report knows that that unauthorised disclosure

was made at the Colonial Office in the Colonial Secretary's room on the morning of the Budget. That is the only time it could have been made. To say that it was casual, was not thought of, was not deliberate, is at least something which, in my submission, ought to be tested by a court of law and as to which the Attorney-General ought not to constitute himself the judge as be has done. He is taking a very grave responsibility in withholding this matter from the courts and himself being the judge as to whether or not this is a matter which, if his interpretation is right, is or is not deliberate. I can imagine no better thing to refer to the court, if it be the case that it must be deliberate, as to whether this unauthorised disclosure was deliberate or not.
I pass to the second part of the Attorney-General's explanation. He said, in the answer which he gave yesterday:
I am not, of course, suggesting that in no case should a prosecution follow on the report of such a Tribunal, but it would be somewhat foreign to our general methods that information which results from the existence or exercise of wide powers of compulsory interrogation and discovery of documents of this kind should be made the basis of a subsequent criminal charge."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th June, 1936; col. 207, Vol. 313.]
I profoundly hope that that is not going to be introduced as an incident in the life of this country. The whole of our administration is full of methods of inquiry. District auditors are sent down to make wide inquiries for the very purpose of discovering whether there is any criminal act which would result in prosecution. There are mining inquiries, in one of which I have been engaged, and I profoundly hope that it is not going to be suggested that, because in the course of such an inquiry wide publicity is given to certain facts or figures that are ascertained, therefore you cannot prosecute as the result of it. If you take wreck inquiries and such an inquiry as that into "La Crescenta," is it going to be said that, because of the wide publicity in the Press, you cannot prosecute as a result of it?
This produces the most fantastic results: the more important the crime the less the possibility of prosecution. If this had been some little leakage through some minor official which had resulted in someone making £50, it would never


have come to the House, there would never have been a tribunal of inquiry, but it would have gone straight to the courts for prosecution. Because it was important, because important people were concerned in it, because large sums were concerned, we are told that, having set up a tribunal to ascertain whether anything was wrong, and having ascertained that something was wrong, nobody must be prosecuted. It is going to be a most unfortunate incident in the public life of this country if, whenever an inquiry is made to ascertain whether public servants or other people are guilty of crimes as regards the public interest, we are then to be told that, because we have made the inquiry, the Attorney-General does not think it the right thing to do to proceed with a prosecution.
I devoutly hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will reconsider his opinion on this matter. I hope that he is going to be, as I know he is, a big enough person to reconsider his opinion, because the repercussions of this in the country will be very different from what some hon. Members imagine. I do not think that there is any feeling of vindictiveness in the country, and I hope sincerely that there is not, but I do think that there will be a feeling that the ordinary man gets prosecuted and that, for some reason, because these persons are Members of the House of Commons, they are not prosecuted. That may be entirely wrong, but there will be, I believe, that feeling in the country, and these excuses which the hon. and learned Gentleman has put forward for not going forward with this prosecution are excuses which cannot possibly hold water. His final one was:
There is a further point. In a criminal trial the fundamental principle is that the jury should act and act only on the evidence called before them at the trial. It would, of course, in this case be impossible to obtain a jury who were not familiar with the findings of the Tribunal, and indeed with much of the evidence called before them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th June, 1936; col. 207, Vol. 313.]
That arises in every cause célèbre that comes before a magistrate. It may be a good reason for getting rid of preliminary proceedings as we have them in England and for adopting the Scottish method, but it is certainly no good reason for distinguishing between this preliminary inquiry held before a Tribunal

and that which is carried on at Bow Street day after day in such things as, for instance, the great fire conspiracy case, when every evening paper in London had full accounts of what happened before the magistrate. Everybody who could have been picked for a London jury would have read all about it. That may be a misfortune, but with wide publicity in the Press it is one of the things we have to accept in connection with the administration of the criminal law, and as regards that there is no distinction between this case and any other cause célèbre.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: The magistrate is bound by the rules of evidence, and this Tribunal was not. The magistrate does not make definite findings, as this Tribunal did. The magistrate merely decides that it is a proper case to go to another court.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I understood, from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said yesterday, that the jury would be familiar with the findings of the Tribunal and, indeed, with much of the evidence called before them. The magistrate finds that there is a prima facie case. That is all that has been found here, as I understand it, according to the Prime Minister. [Hon. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, that is what I understand. He distinguished very carefully between these people being found guilty of a crime and their being found by this inquiry to have done something which they ought not to have done. I put it in that form. There is no suggestion here that this Tribunal has found them guilty of a crime. I understood that was emphasised by the Prime Minister, and that I think, everybody understands. They have been found guilty of doing something they ought not to have done, in much the same way as when a magistrate finds a prima facie case against someone he has found that prima facie he has been doing something or other. In such a case the persons accused generally reserve their defence. In this case they had the opportunity to call evidence and speeches were made upon the evidence, and although it is quite clear that this Tribunal is different from a magistrate's court, so far as the incidence of publicity is concerned there is substantially no difference between the one and the other. If it is an excuse in this case


not to proceed with prosecutions because of the publicity that has been given to the matter, it would be a very valid excuse in a great number of other cases.
In conclusion, let me say of the three reasons put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman there is none of them that I can accept, and I do ask him to reconsider this matter, because I believe it is of the utmost importance both that these individuals should be prosecuted, as any other individuals would be, and that they should be given the opportunity, if they want it, of that prosecution.

6.48 p.m.

Sir ALAN ANDERSON: We have been taking part in a sad Debate, which was started and which has been for the most part kept on a high level of dignity, and I feel sure it is the wish of all of us that the Resolution to which we come should be on the same high level. I myself very much share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) that it would be a pity to tack on to this Resolution any comments on gambling proceedings in the City of London or elsewhere. I sit for the City of London. The House is proud of its dignity, and the City of London is proud of its dignity. The great institutions of the City are very proud of their dignity, and we are very proud of them and we ought to be. Those institutions have been a great part of the machinery which has built up and maintained our trade, and we want them; we wanted them never more than we want them now. It may be said, in fact I think it has been said this afternoon, that we should tack on to this Motion a condemnatory clause about one of these institutions because it has led, apparently, some innocent people into the vice of gambling.
What actually happened? Two men, regular gamblers, as near to being professional gamblers as you can be, according to the findings of the Tribunal acquired exclusive information of great value to them. It was a "tip." When a gambler gets a "tip" what does he do? He at once seeks to use it. As well expect an ice not to melt on a boiling hot day as expect a gambler not to make use of a "tip." They resort to the City, they go to the Stock Exchange. We all know that it is possible to gamble on the Stock Exchange. We have not anything

like the habit of gambling on the Stock Exchange which they have in many other countries, but I personally have no hope that we shall prevent gambling on Stock Exchanges in the life of this Parliament or in the life of the next, even if there be a change in the Government. That is one of the inherent troubles of humanity; we cannot get out of it, and what we must do is to support the committee of the Stock Exchange and see that they do their job well and truly.
Those two men, with their "tips," went to the Stock Exchange, and they did not come off very well on the Stock Exchange. They speculated, but they did not make the fortunes they had expected. Then they committed a cardinal error. They went to Lloyd's, separately, apparently. They thought it would be easier, because Lloyd's is a very open place. They can go to a broker and can make a direct speculation on the direct risk, which they did. And that was their undoing. Notice how Lloyd's protects itself. First, the amount was too large. There are some small risks covered on events of this kind—for which, generally, there is a reason—but the amount of speculative cover is so small that even the comparatively few thousands of pounds which these two gamblers invested at Lloyd's was enough to draw attention upon themselves and to start this inquiry. Would the House blame Lloyd's for that? It is to Lloyd's that we owe the whole cleaning up arising out of this inquiry.
Let me call the attention of the House to another fact. When these gamblers went to the Stock Exchange they had exclusive information, they had picked someone's brains, they had got something which gave them the key of knowledge, and they could take money out of the pockets of people with whom they dealt without risk to themselves. On the Stock Exchange they made the impersonal approach. No one could say whose money they took and no one could come down upon them. They could get away with it. But when they venture into the insurance market two things happen. The first is they take the money of a specific man, the underwriter. He begins to think, he looks round. The second thing is that they break the law of insurance. If any person, a shipowner for example, has an insurable interest but conceals from his underwriter an im-


portant factor in the risk, the insurance is void. It is a different atmosphere altogether; it is not gambling. I beg hon. Members to believe that it is the precise reverse of gambling.
Lloyd's is an institution set up to enable people who are engaged in a very risky business, with risks which one cannot always calculate or define, to cover and spread their risks. Some hon. Member here spoke of co-operation, said we ought to have co-operative insurance. That is precisely what we have got. I am a shipowner, and my firm are also insurance brokers. I have been for more than a quarter of a century an underwriter. I have never sat in the room, I have never begun to think about taking a risk on my own, but we spread out among ourselves the risks to people who are in the trade and know each other, and if any strange person comes in to gamble he is, as we have seen, rapidly spotted. Is not that good? Can you consider such a place as a gambling hell, or a place with a gambling atmosphere? Precisely the reverse.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I understand the hon. Member is replying to a. point which I put. Is it not the case that the Act of 1909, which prohibits gambling policies, refers only to marine insurance, and to no other class of insurance?

Sir A. ANDERSON: That is so, and there are policies in marine and in other risks which are called P.P.I., meaning Policy Proof of Interest, in which the insurer does not disclose his interest. He generally has an interest, but it is very difficult to define. I cannot pretend to be an expert in the intricacies of insurance, but if we were going at length into this question we should find that there is very good reason for 99 out of every 100 P.P.I. insurances, and the number that are really speculative, as in this case, is extremely small. This is a very important Debate, and what I strongly urge is that we should present ourselves to the world after a most unpleasant incident, with a dignified, square Resolution. It would be deplorable to tack on to it a pendant which I submit is not justified by the facts and which would be much better left, if inquiry is needed into dealings in the City—it is, I agree, constantly needed, if done by the right people in the right way—to a season

when we can do it quietly and not when we are discussing such a terribly grievous affair as we are discussing to-night.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. DENMAN: The House is at present engaged in considering the Amendment moved to the Motion, but perhaps the House will allow me to refer back to the Motion. Anyone who speaks in this Debate must be oppressed by a sense of the personal tragedy which runs through our proceedings. I entered this House in January, 1910, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas). Whenever the House has divided we have normally been found in the same Lobby, and I served from 1929 in a Government of which he was a distinguished Member. It is inevitable, therefore, that one should feel a sense of tragedy at the way he goes from politics to-day. At the same time I think the House will agree that his manner of departing is not the least of the services he has performed to Parliament. He has departed from us with something of a sense that the welfare of the State and of the House is of more account than his own personal interest. May I say that I accept absolutely the findings of the Tribunal? Like hon. Members opposite I was critical of the process of setting up some tribunal other than the House itself to consider what was a domestic matter, but the result shows that we who were critical of the tribunal were wrong. The tribunal has undoubtedly reached conclusions with more definiteness and greater sense of certainty than any Select Committee of this House would have achieved. In a way I regret that, because I felt strongly that this House should keep in its own hands the washing of its own dirty linen. We are the high court of Parliament, and we should exercise our function when occasion arises. It have become clear from this episode that the House will not be likely again to be asked to set up a Select Committee for such a case.
The Amendment that has been moved has been used as a vehicle of attack on certain institutions which, I am sure, do not deserve that attack. I agree entirely with the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment in his attack on gambling in general. He was expressing a widely felt senti-


ment that there is in commercial and social life in this country a degree of gambling that is inimical to social welfare, and the more examples of that kind that are made public the more deeply the public is stirred with a sense that there is a great deal that is rotten in wealthy society. But when we come from that general proposition to a particular attack on Lloyd's, which both he and the Leader of the Opposition made, I suggest that it is barking up the wrong tree. If you examine this report, and the evidence, Lloyd's comes extremely well out of it. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir A. Anderson) has put the case as well as it could be put. The total amount of these insurances, according to the evidence, was some £27,000, both legitimate and illegitimate, and when my right hon. Friend suggests that what is needed is some protection for the public against City sharks, I would ask him to realise that what happened in this case was that the City sharks were themselves fleeced. They suffered because they were doing business which they thought was legitimate but which was not legitimate, and because they were not as suspicious as they should have been. The fact that this insurance was done in this way so soon caused Lloyd's to have suspicions that they at once made protests and the whole matter was inquired into, with the result that we see.
Both the right hon. Gentlemen made a further point which I want to answer. They suggested that honour policies should be made illegal. If they realised the facts they would recognise that that is not a solution of the difficulty. Honour policies are an extremely useful fragment of our commercial machinery. I used to underwrite this kind of business more than 30 years ago, and I do not suppose there has been much change in Lloyd's practice in the interval. It was not the kind of risk that was popular in the Room, but we took it because we felt a certain obligation to the public. l have always taken the view as an underwriting member of Lloyd's that it was our business to relieve the commercial community of any extraordinary risks that they could not meet themselves. The ordinary trader has enough risks in the day-to-day conduct of his business, and when he is confronted by some ex-

ceptional risk he cannot go ahead with confidence unless he can cover it.
The hon. and gallant Member for West Birkenhead (Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen) gave some examples of the kind of risks that are entirely legitimate that are covered at Lloyd's. There is the example of a death in the Royal Family. He pointed out how many retail establishments have stocks of coloured goods which become practically unsaleable if there is a death in the Royal Family. You cannot cover these risks by means of ordinary policies of indemnity, because you cannot prove the precise amount of loss. How can a big retail establishment which has stocks of coloured goods unsold, and sells them at a rather lower price, prove that they would have been able to get the full price for the whole lot How can they measure the precise volume of their loss in the event of the contingency occurring? It is understood between the underwriter and the insurer that, in the event of the risk occurring, the policy shall be paid for an amount previously decided. That is the whole basis of the honour policy, and it is a. useful and convenient method of business. Take the simple case of the agricultural show that has to undertake a good deal of preliminary expense, and that may find its receipts heavily damaged by bad weather. If that event arises they cannot reckon exactly how much they have lost. They cannot say that a particular shower caused them to lose so many hundreds of pounds. They take out a. policy so that they shall be paid so much if it is a wet day, and it is honoured by the underwriter, who understands that it is a legitimate risk.
It is true that this inquiry has revealed that it is possible for underwriters to be approached to accept risks where there is no bona fide interest, and the committee of Lloyd's has taken steps to prevent that. In my time I do not think it would have been worth considering any such protection, because the underwriters were able to protect themselves. Lloyd's committee has decided that there shall be additional protection, and has set up a committee which is able to advise underwriters if there is or is not a legitimate interest. We all agree that where there is legitimate interest we want insurance to take place, and where there is not


we want it to be stopped. I believe the practice of Lloyd's under the new conditions imposed by the committee, and the common sense of the underwriters, will effectively achieve that, and I trust that the House will not think it necessary to add this Amendment setting  an inquiry.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have a good deal of sympathy with the view put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir A. Anderson), that after we have been discussing affairs of such tragic and solemn character as those which occupied our attention a short time ago, it seems inappropriate that we should mix up an incident which we all hope may be closed with a discussion which has ranged over a wide field, and which, I should have thought, could be more properly settled on some other occasion. But I must make some reply to what the right hon. Gentleman opposite has said, and I will deal with one or two of the instances he gave, because I think he built up a top-heavy structure on what he said of the rapid growth, day by day, of reprehensible practices in the banking system, the produce markets, and the Stock Exchange as well as on Lloyd's. We must recognise that we are always liable to scandals like those connected with the names of Hatry and Bevan, which occur in every country, and I suppose will continue to occur, whatever we may do here, as long as people are credulous and are anxious to take opportunities which they think they see of making money easily.
But do not let us forget that these people are generally caught, and that punishment is meted out to them sooner or later. We cannot put a stop to gambling by legislation. Efforts have been made in that direction before now, and nobody has found how to suppress an insuppressible instines in the human race. The right hon. Gentleman does not specify in his Amendment the kind of legislation or any particular method of dealing with the matter, although I understand from what he said that he desires that we should proceed by way of inquiry. But what sort of an inquiry? Is it to be a roving inquiry into all the practices on the Stock Exchange and the other institutions I have mentioned with-

out anything in the nature of a prima facie case to show that gambling or fraudulent operations form any major part of the business of those institutions? I cannot see how anything of the kind can be justified by anything the right hon. Gentleman has told us.
I want to refer to one particular matter he brought forward, namely, the allegations in an American newspaper about the Newfoundland bonds a few years ago. The right hon. Gentleman did not found himself upon the scurrilous observations in that paper, which were, in fact, cut out of the paper before it was published in this country to avoid any possible action for libel, but he founded himself upon certain quotations for the bonds and the changes in those quotations, before and after the announcement of the Government had been made. What is the implication of the right hon. Gentleman's observations? He says that there were no dealings in those bonds at all for months—which is not surprising when you consider the nature of the circumstances—until, he said, a few days before the publication of the Government's report, when they slowly rose. The figures that I have do not accurately correspond with those of the right hon. Gentleman, but the trend, which is, I think, all he wishes to lay stress upon, is very much the same. He says that the three per cents. rose from 70½ to 72 before the publication, and that after the publication they rose to 90.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The 3 per cents. rose to 95 on 22nd November

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. They did rise to 95, but that shows precisely what I wanted to show. The supposition in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman is, apparently, that the fact that those bonds rose at all before the announcement of the Government's decision shows that it must have been because those who were buying them had prior knowledge of the decision which was going to be made. In that case I should think they would have risen very much more than they did. They only rose 1½, but they rose from 72 to 95 immediately publication took place.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Perhaps I did not explain myself clearly. In regard to the 3 per cent. stock, I attempted to say,


if I did not, that there was no market at all for months, and then, suddenly, on 20th November, two days before the Government's announcement was made, there was an active market. It is not a question of how much they rose; there was an active market.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman's mind at once presents a sinister interpretation of that fact, and he can see only one possible explanation of it. Surely there is an obvious one. I have no knowledge of what was in the minds of those who bought those stocks, but a very probable explanation is that the public knew that the Government's report was to come out, and that there was a considerable presumption that when it did come out there would be some provision which would raise the value of Newfoundland bonds. That there was very little certainty about it is shown by the very small rise compared with the very large rise which took place as soon as everybody knew what had happened.
The right hon. Gentleman says that very improper transactions take place because it is possible for chairmen and directors of companies to know what are going to be the dividends declared, and to buy shares and put them in the names of the banks and of nominees. I am not going into the question of whether it is necessary to introduce legislation to correct that state of affairs, but I do say that it is not necessary to have an inquiry. We have all the information that we want. Personally—I must be careful to say that this is only my personal opinion—I think there is some need for the reform or amendment of the present company law, but I do not think that this is the occasion on which we should take that matter into consideration.
There is, however, one matter which I think we might consider in this connection, and which is much more closely connected with what we have been discussing than some of the matters mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. What happened, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir A. Anderson) has not affected a great number of people and does not involve a very large amount, but, at the same time, it is a deplorable instance, which affected the honour of the House as well as two individuals, and we wish that it had never occurred. We wish that we could make

it impossible for it ever to occur again. I have been in communication with the Committee of Lloyd's who, after all, are the people who can best regulate their affairs, so as to see that legitimate interests are not interfered with, while illegitimate interests are dealt with, and I have been informed by them—what, indeed, has already been made public property—that they have considered the position of what are known as insurance of contingency risks and that they have appealed to all their underwriting agents not to accept risks of that kind without first satisfying themselves that the assured has a legitimate interest which has to be covered by insurance.
As has been pointed out by various hon. Members, interests not only vary very much, but it is sometimes extremely difficult to know whether there is interest at all and how much that interest is. To provide for that, the Committee are going to set up a special permanent sub-committee, from whom underwriting agents can, at short notice, obtain a ruling in cases where there is any doubt whether there is or is not an insurable interest in a risk offered. That, I hope, will give complete control of these contingency risks. When you come to the particular risks that were in question in this case, namely, Budget risks, there is, I think, another way in which we can make it impossible for any repetition of what has occurred now, accepting the findings of the Tribunal that there was a. disclosure of information as to the contents of the Budget, and that was made use of for improper purposes. I asked the Committee of Lloyd's to consider whether it would not be possible, without injury to the legitimate interests, to make a sort of close season just before the Budget statement was made, and to undertake that no Budget risks should be accepted during that close season, which, I suggested to them, might extend from the end of the financial year, 31st March, until the date when the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes his Budget statement. The Committee of Lloyd's have expressed to me their readiness to do their utmost to adopt that suggestion, and I have not any doubt that the members of Lloyd's will readily and loyally comply with any request that is made to them by their committee. I have also ascertained, because I thought it was possible that this might occasion some inconvenience to the


commodity market, that there is no reason to suppose that the proper and legitimate insurance of risks against taxation on commodities will be affected by this provision. I think the House may take it that this suggestion will be carried out and that, by carrying it out, we shall secure that it will be impossible that what has happened on this occasion will ever occur again.

Mr. LOGAN: Would it not follow that you must also have a policy not to give any information to the Cabinet also, in regard to the proposals?

7.25 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said at the beginning of his speech he regretted that a discussion which had arisen out of the personal matters dealt with at the beginning of the sitting should have developed into wider considerations of alleged speculation and gambling in connection with certain institutions of a commercial and economic character in the City of London. I totally disagree with him. We have witnessed this afternoon a great human tragedy. There are certain lessons to be learned from that human tragedy, and there may he no better time than when we are considering the Report of the Tribunal upon the Budget disclosures, for this Opposition to draw the moral and to give the explanation and to paint to the House and, I hope, to the country, the picture which lies behind the Budget. Inquiry and the human tragedy. That picture shows that there is something wrong with the economic, financial and social organisation of our country that these things are possible.
I have no doubt that it is inconvenient to the Government, and certainly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that we should point out the political and economic moral of this situation, but we are not here to study the convenience of the Government, and certainly not the convenience of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are here to do our duty, and if something happens of importance in the life of our country and if, behind that, there is something infinitely bigger and more profound than the personal issues, something wrong in the social and industrial life of our country, perhaps it is more profitable that we should dis-

cuss the social, economic and financial implications of this business than that we should confine ourselves to the individual issues that are involved. I totally fail to understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Member who represents the City of London (Sir A. Anderson) should deprecate that, in the course of this discussion, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) and the Leader of the Opposition have drawn the Debate rather more wide. I think it was essential and important that that should be done.
The Chancellor has said that such cases as the Hatry case will continue to happen as long as people are credulous, and that those people must take the consequences; but if we take the Hatry case, there were people much beyond the sphere of the gambler who were sufferers as a result of it. There were great municipal corporations in the country who were victimised by it, and there were hundreds, perhaps, of those small men for whom the Conservative party is supposed to be the principal spokesmen, the little man and the small investor, who were stung by that adventure in the City of London. We say that if the financial business and the industry of our country were properly run, with a sense of public responsibility and proper public control, these victimisations of poor little men who have saved their money and invested in these concerns, would not happen. To suggest that it is only the Hatrys themselves who get stung, is wrong.
The thing goes much wider than that. There are speculations and gambles in the food of the people, in the necessities of life of the millions of the people of this country. They are gambled in and prices are influenced by these gambles. The very necessities of life of the people are influenced in their availability. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this gambling does not matter, that it affects certain credulous people, and that if people will continue to be credulous, they must put up with the result. He went on to deprecate a roving inquiry into all the practices of the City of London in these speculative and gambling spheres. We demand from the Government a complete and comprehensive inquiry into all the speculative and gambling operations that go on in the City of London and elsewhere as affect-


ing the daily industrial and economic needs of the people of our country. Why should we not have it? Why do the Government resist this inquiry? They resist it for the simple reason that they are afraid of what will come out of it. They know that there are bound to be considerable revelations as the result of any such impartial inquiry. If His Majesty's Government were not afraid of the result of such an inquiry, the Government to-day would be the first to say that, in view of these matters, in which two of their own supporters are involved, they would welcome any inquiry in order that the facts might he fully given.
As a matter of fact, it never appears to be the proper time to make inquiries into these operations. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) reminds me that in 1928 and 1929 the Labour Opposition in this House made vigorous and valiant efforts to secure Amendments to the Companies Bill then before Parliament that would have prevented some of these things happening. Those Amendments were resisted by the Conservative Government of the day simply because Conservative Governments then and the Conservative Government now regard themselves as the instruments and the protectors of capitalist interests, and they are going to champion and protect those interests as long as they can. We saw it on the Mines Bill, when the Government had to collapse because of the opposition that came from the Mining Association and the Federation of British Industries. The only reason why the Government to-day will not consent to this inquiry is because the Government function as protecting the interests of the capitalist and financial classes. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer says there is no evidence of the Newfoundland business but my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling is not convinced about that on the facts of the market movements at the time.
In any case would it not be desirable for the Government to consider whether they should or should not take powers to inspect the books of the brokers and jobbers to see what the facts are in this matter? I gather that the Government have no such powers and that the Chancellor does not want any such powers. Why does he not want these powers?

Because he does not want the Government to know too much about the internal business of these institutions, because he knows that the result would be damaging to the capitalist system that he and his Government exist to protect and further. We are told to be satisfied with the fact that Lloyd's themselves have taken the matter up, but why be satisfied? If there were weaknesses at Lloyd's and in these insurances, why should Lloyd's have waited all these years in order to take action? Why have scandals to occur in our national life before this institution takes action that really ought to have been taken years ago? The fact is that it has not been taken before now, and the fact is that the Chancellor even now does not know what is going to happen, for all that Lloyd's have said is that they will do their utmost. It is almost like a Ministerial reply in this House—it is equally guarded and careful—that they will do their utmost. That is all that has been said, but why wait till now? Why must there be a great Parliamentary scandal before action is taken, why must it only be a conditional promise, and why must it take place only at this stage? Because, if it takes place at all, it will be a slight concession to public opinion and the Chancellor will be very much obliged, because it will help him to refuse to bring legislation before this House or to institute a Royal Commission or other appropriate form of inquiry.
The hon. Member for the City of London said that the amount involved in this business was very small, but that does not in any way vitiate the principle of the thing. He says, "When we do this business of inquiry, let us do it quietly, gently, with not too much noise about it." I want all the noise I can get about it. I want all the facts to be revealed, as to how private interests in the City of London, and in other cities as well—probably the City of Birmingham, if you could only know—gamble and speculate contrary to the public interest and irrespective of the social wellbeing. Why should we wait quietly? Let it come out in the light of day. Let the people in the country see how capitalist society works. Let them know the facts. Why should hon. and right hon. Gentlemen be afraid of the facts being known? Why is the hon. Member afraid of the


facts about the City of London being known? Why does he want to keep it so quiet, and under the surface, and sub rosa? No; we say, "Let us have it out."
I venture to say that if this speculation that has been going on in the case which we are now considering had been speculation that had stung the domestic housewives of the working classes, there would not have been so much indignation in Conservative quarters about it. This was a case of the rich robbing the rich, and it is much more easy to get indignant about that; it is outside the rules of the game. I say that that is the reason for a great deal of the indignation in Conservative quarters and in Conservative meetings. I see no indignation when it is the working classes who are the victims of capitalist speculation and capitalist gambling. That is natural, that is understandable, but when the rich rob the rich, outside the rules of the game of the rich, then the Conservative party become one of the greatest moral forces in the country. I have never been more convinced of the soundness of the doctrine of the materialist conception of history and of economic determinism as promulgated by Karl Marx than I have been when I have watched the moral activities of the Conservative party. Why are their morals so restricted? Why do they only function within a strictly defined sphere? Why do they not extend to the slum landlords taking rents out of tenants when their property is scarcely habitable? Why does it not extend to profiteering in the food of the people? It does not extend to these things because the people who are gaining are the rich people who are the mainstay of the Conservative party and the victims are the poor, but when it is a question of the rich themselves becoming the victims, then the moral character and the ethical standards of the Conservative party go up to a very great height indeed.
The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said—and I admired his speech; it was a very good speech, made in difficult circumstances and very well done—that there was agreement on both sides that Cabinet proceedings and Cabinet secrets ought to be respected. I think some of my hon. Friends would regard me as even old-fashioned on the point, but I, personally, think it is vitally important that the sacredness of Cabinet secrets

should be maintained, that if Governments want to announce anything that they have done, they should announce it as a corporate body, and that individual members should not do it. If individual members do it, it only leads to abuse, to political manoeuvring, and to the furtherance of private interests in one way or another. Personally, I attach the greatest importance to the privacy of Cabinet business being fully maintained, and when I made an oath as a Privy Councillor and as a member of the Cabinet I kept it, but I am not sure that hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite have very much room to shout.
I remember, at the end of the Parliament of 1931, when the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas)—and I want to say no more about him than I can help; he is down, and I am not going to kick a man who is down—was put up by the Cabinet of that day for the deliberate purpose of giving his version of the internal proceedings of the Labour Cabinet. Lord Snowden, then Mr. Snowden, did the same when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he was encouraged to do it by right hon. Gentlemen who are now on the Treasury Bench, by Privy Councillors who had taken the oath of secrecy to His Majesty. They encouraged Lord Snowden, then Mr. Snowden, and they encouraged the right hon. Member for Derby to get up in this House for the specific purpose of revealing, according to their own version, the private and internal proceedings of the Labour Government. Do not hon. Members opposite who were here then remember how they cheered? Do they not remember the great scenes of enthusiasm with which the former very distinguished Members of the Labour movement were greeted, the enthusiasm with which they were cheered, the enthusiasm with which they were goaded on to make more and more revelations and more and more breaches of their Privy Councillors' oath to His late Majesty? They did, and who are the Conservative party to talk about the sacredness of oaths?
I do not want to go back to Ulster, but who are the Conservative party to talk about the sacredness of oaths? They deliberately encouraged and used those men for political reasons against us, and


deliberately encouraged them and incited them and put them up in this House for the purpose of revealing private Cabinet information in this House. I had the same experience across the water when a Conservative Member of this House who then led the Council asked me questions about the Labour Cabinet proceedings—Was this true, was the other true?—and I made the answer that I had made an oath of secrecy to His Majesty the King and that I proposed to keep it; and I was laughed at by the Conservative party, scorned, because I respected my oath of secrecy. I venture to say that it is not for hon. Members opposite to be too shocked. It is for us. Is it the case—I can quite believe it, for the morals of the Conservative party are very adaptable indeed, and they should really understand the materialist conception of history—that it is dishonourable to break the secrecy of Conservative Cabinets, but that it is honourable to break the secrecy of a Labour Cabinet? Is that it? What other explanation is there? They know as well as I do that Privy Councillors there deliberately encouraged these things to be done and that every Tory Member then in this House cheered them to the echo.
Not only that, but at the beginning of this Parliament too, in the Debate on the Address, precisely the same thing took place. I am almost tempted to think that the principal function of the so-called Labour Members of the Cabinet was to be used as revelationists of the proceedings of the Cabinet of which they used to be members. I take the view that all Cabinets should keep their secrets. I was a little surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have revealed his Budget statement to this Cabinet, of all Cabinets, at the early date that he did, and then have allowed them loose, to go on holiday. It was a terribly shocking, blundering judgment, and all because they would not come back from their holidays two days earlier. This is a holiday Government. It is always engaging in holiday reflections. It seems to me a ridiculous thing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, knowing his colleagues a good deal better than I do, should have made his Budget statement to the Cabinet about 10 or 12 days before the statement was made in this House, and then to have let them loose, wandering all over the country, doing all

sorts of things, and meeting all sorts of people. It was a most risky and injudicious thing to have done. The motive for it is obvious. The Cabinet is very sticky about its working conditions, and it was not coming back to work one minute before it was essential.
We take the view that there ought to be an inquiry. We think that the inquiry that we demand and the appropriate action by the Government that we demand are necessary. It is not appropriate that there should be delay until some nebulous time, because we are certain that if the matter is left over the Government will do nothing about it. We demand from the Government a decision now as to whether further action shall be taken by them, or whether they are merely to receive the report, agree with the report, note the intended resignations of the right hon. Member for Derby and the hon. Member for Balham and Tooting, and then to pass on, to let the world go on, to let the City of London go on, just as they were going on before. That is not what the country expects of us. The country is pained about this business. The country is concerned about it. The honour of the City of London is as dear to me as it is to anyone associated with the City of London. I want the City of London to be able to hold its head erect and not to be ashamed in the face of the world of any of its proceedings. I am not talking about the City Corporation. It would be grossly unfair to associate the City Corporation, the municipality, with the financial and economic institutions of the City itself. I am concerned about those economic and financial institutions.
On behalf of my friends, I say that we are all concerned, and the country is concerned. Things are revealed which are not good for the economic and social life of our country. Things are revealed which at any time are liable to affect the purity of our public life and the decency of our public administration, which is as dear to us as it is to anybody in our country or in the whole world. Therefore, we shall divide the House on the Amendment. We shall ask the House to ask the Government to take further action, instead of leaving the matter where it is. If the House declines to ask the Government to take further action,


we shall be bound, and the country will be bound, to draw the conclusions which are obvious therefrom.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I will delay the House only a minute. It is not my custom to interrupt people when they are speaking. I rose in perfect courtesy to put a question to the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), and I will now put it in the form of a statement. I think my memory is right. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government of the day used Lord Snowden and the right

hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) during or just after the financial crisis of 1931, for the purpose of their making improper revelations of Cabinet secrets. If I remember rightly—and I was in the House at the time, I only bring it up now because I consider that the right hon. Gentleman was making a very unfair point—they were used on that occasion to controvert gross inaccuracies which had been made by other ex-Members of the Cabinet.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 227.

Division No. 230.]
AYES.
[7.50 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Parker, J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parkinson, J. A.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Groves, T. E.
Potts, J.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Price, M. P.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pritt, D. N.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hardle, G. D.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Banfield, J. W.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Riley, B.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ritson, J.


Batey, J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bellenger, F.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Benson, G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Rowson, G.


Bevan, A.
Jagger, J.
Salter, Dr. A.


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bromfield, W.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Brooke, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Shinwell, E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Short, A.


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Silkin, L.


Burke, W. A.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Cassells, T.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Chater, D.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lathan, G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cocks, F. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Sorenson, R. W.


Compton, J.
Leach, W.
Stephen, C.


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leonard, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Daggar, G.
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dalton, H.
Logan, D. G.
Thorne, W.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lunn, W.
Thurtle, E.


Dobble, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McEntee, V. La T.
Viant. S. P.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
McGhee, H. G.
Walkden, A. G.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
MacLaren, A.
Walker, J.


Foot, D. M.
Maclean, N.
Watkins, F. C.


Frankel, D.
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Watson, W. McL.


Gallacher, W.
Marklew, E.
Westwood, J.


Gardner, B. W.
Marshall, F.
White, H. Graham


Garro Jones, G. M.
Mathers, G.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Messer, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Milner, Major J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gibbins, J.
Montague, F.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y. S )
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Muff, G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grenfell, D. R.
Oliver, G. H.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.




NOES.


Albery, I. J.
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Boulton, W. W.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Baxter, A. Beverley
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Bower, Comdr. R. T.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Belt, Sir A. L.
Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N.
Brass, Sir W.


Assheton, R.
Bernays, R. H.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Birchall, Sir J. D.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)


Atholl, Duchess of
Blaker, Sir R.
Burghley, Lord


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Blindell, Sir J.
Burgin, Dr. E. L.




Burton, Col. H. W.
Jackson, Sir H.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Cary, R. A.
Joel, D. J. B.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Keeling, E. H.
Reid, W. Allen (Derby)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Remer, J. R.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Rikhards, G. W. (Skipton)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br.W.)
Lamb, Sir J. O.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Clarke, F. E.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Rowlands, G.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Lees-Jones, J.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Colman, N. C. D.
Liddall, W. S.
Salmon, Sir I.


Colville. Lt.-Col. D. J.
Lindsay, K. M.
Salt, E. W.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lloyd, G. W.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'sf'r S.G'gs)
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Savery, Servington


Craven-Ellis, W.
Loftus, P. C.
Scott, Lord William


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Selley, H. R.


Crossley, A. C.
Lumley, Capt. L. R.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Somerset, T.


Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Dawson, Sir P.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


De Chair, S. S.
Macdonald, Capt. p. (Isle of Wight)
Spens, W. P.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McKie, J. H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Dunglass, Lord
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Storey, S.


Eales, J. F.
Maitland, A.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Markham, S. F.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Erskine Hill, A. G.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Stuart, Lord C, Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Sutcliffe, H.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Tate, Mavis C.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Goldie, N. B.
Moreing, A. C.
Titchfield, MarQuess of


Goodman, Col. A. W.
Morgan, R. H.
Touche, G. C.


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Train, Sir J.


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A J.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Grimston, R. V.
Munro, P.
Turton, R. H.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Wakefield, W. W.


Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Guy, J. C. M.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Warrender, Sir V.


Hanbury, Sir C.
Patrick, C. M.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Hannah, I. C.
Peake, O.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Penny, Sir G.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Harbord, A.
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Petherick, M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Pilkington, R.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Horsbrugh, Florence
Radford, E. A.
Wragg, H.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ralkes, H. V. A. M.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.



Hume, Sir G. H.
Ramsbotham, H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hunter, T.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Commander Southby and Dr.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Rankin, R.
Morris-Jones,


Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the report of the Tribunal appointed under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, be accepted.

PENSIONS (GOVERNORS OF DOMINIONS, ETC.) BILL.

Considered in Committee [Progress, 5th May].

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1. —(Pensions to certain governors with three years' service.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

8.0 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: We are opposing this Clause because we are not satisfied with the information that has been given to us in regard to the Bill. The Bill has been before the House for a long time. It was introduced last December, and it has been brought forward on several occasions, but unfortunately it has been brought on late at night, and apparently, owing to the lateness of the hour, the Minister in charge has felt that no one troubled about it, and we have been unable to get the explanation to which we think we are entitled. Anyone reading Clause 1 will find that it is for the purpose of removing anomalies appertaining to Governors of Dominions. So far as I can judge, it means that, where they have served a certain length of time in the Civil Service, that is added to the time they have served as a Governor, and they become entitled to a pension.
Certain circumstances had arisen before the Bill was introduced which were felt by the Government not to give fairness to these Governors, and for that reason the Bill was brought in. No one would cavil at that, except for the fact that it means an additional burden on the State. The sum mentioned in the Financial Resolution was approximately £2,000 per annum, but there has been no mention, so far as I know, of the number of persons affected or likely to be affected, and therefore, while £2,000 may appear to be a small sum when we are dealing with millions, it may be a large sum when only a few people are affected. These Governors are in receipt of a decent pension now. I am not quite sure what it is, because we are not able to get the information, but a figure was mentioned of anywhere between £300 and £1,200 per annum. That is one of the

points about which we are not satisfied. Assuming, however, a figure midway between these two, namely, £600, if an addition is made to that it appears to be rather a big item. Supposing that 10 Governors are affected, £2,000 per annum would mean a further £200 for each. It may be that one or two will get more, or there may not be so many affected. We want to be clear as to how many are affected and what will be the ultimate result when the Bill comes into operation.
It may be said, quite truly, that we want to deal fairly by these men who take up responsible positions on behalf of the Government, but it must also be understood that this means placing further sums at the disposal of well-paid men. We can think of other anomalies in the State, and, if it is considered necessary to remove some anomalies, we who speak for a much poorer section naturally feel that we have a right to make some comparisons. I know that I am on dangerous ground, but I want to put it to you, Captain Bourne, and to the Colonial Secretary, that this £2,000 has to come out of the taxpayers' pockets in some way or another. Every citizen in the country, either by direct or indirect taxation, pays a quota towards it, whether it be big or little, and we have a right to speak on behalf of all those citizens, because it is their money that we are using. Each of them has to find something, even though it be only 2d. a pound on tea. Therefore, I am attempting to link up Clause 1 of the Bill with this £2,000 that will be required, because it has some bearing on the anomalies which affect other classes of persons who are not so well off. I know that the discussion is strictly limited, and I am trying to keep within the rules of order, but I suggest that, if we can prove the existence of anomalies in other cases, we have a right to describe them to the House.
One illustration which I have used before is the anomaly of the old age pensioner whose wife has not turned 65. I shall not dwell too much upon that case; I only wish to show that the anomalies in connection with it are flagrant; but every time we bring them forward the Chancellor says, "You may be right; your arguments may be sound; but where can I get the money without introducing


excessive taxation?" We are, however, finding this £2,000, and, although it may not appear to be a big sum as against the £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 that would be required to remove the other anomalies, still it is an addition to the burden of taxation, and, before we can agree to it, we desire that the whole matter should be examined by the Committee, so that we may be quite satisfied that it is proper and fair that these men should have it. We ought also to be shown why this class of persons should be treated differently from others. Is the anomaly in their case worse than those which exist in other cases? If so, let it be proved, but, if not, we have a right to ask why the other cases are not being considered at the same time.
I live at St. Helens, where we try to deal with our aged people better than is the case in some other parts of the community. Here is an example of the anomaly which I am trying to point out. Only this week in the local Press it is stated that 659 old folk aged 65 and over are on parish relief, their pensions not being sufficient to keep them, and it has been decided by the council to give them an extra 1s. a week each over and above what they get from the parish, in order to relieve them a little more. When the House of Commons is examining the case of people who are getting very large salaries, is it not at the same time going to take into consideration cases of this kind, which exist all over the country? After all, these aged people, according to their light and education, have done as much for the welfare of the State as the Governors have done. We claim that the state of society ought to be such that every citizen shall give his full value to the State, according to the lights and merits that Nature has given him, and, while these Governors, well educated and cultured men because of their position in life, give their service to the State, which we welcome, we question whether they are entitled to have these big salaries over and above what is required to keep them in the ordinary way of life, as against a vast number of poor people who can hardly keep body and soul together.
In our English life, nobody wants to go to the Poor Law for relief if he can do without it. There is a certain pride in our poor people, and the last thing they

want to do is to take parish relief. Here we have over 600 persons in St. Helens who, although they are receiving a pension, have to get Poor Law relief in order to try to get the ordinary means of life, and the Council is now spending an additional £1,000 a year to try to give them something more. These are the points that we want examined when this Bill is being dealt with. I would urge the Government not to try to get these matters through late at night. The opposition has been created because we felt that there was something shady about it. I always feel, when a Measure is brought in at Eleven o'clock or later, that there is something rather fishy about it, and it always makes me all the more keen. If this Measure had been brought on earlier, it would not have been held up as it has been. Owing to the feeling that we have not had fair play, and that there is something hidden behind it, we have determined to have the whole thing examined and to get a full explanation before we allow it to go through.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. KELLY: I want to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) in asking for some further explanation as to why we have this Measure at this time. The explanation that we had when the Money Resolution was before the House in December last was very unsatisfactory. The Government at that time were rather inclined to remind Members on this side that we were responsible for the previous Measure of 1929, and the representative of the Government on that occasion thought that the Measure had been brought in during the time that the Labour party were in office. He ought to have known better, as it came from the Conservative Government of that day. The Bill provides that, where a Governor has completed not less than three years' service as a Governor, and where his total service in a Governorship and in the Civil Service is not less than ten years, he is entitled at the end of ten years' service to a pension. The pension was increased under the Act of 1929 to, I think, something like £1,200 a year. We are now asked to concede a further pension to those with ten years' service, while at the same time pensions are being refused to people 60 years of age who will have rendered at least 40 years' service in the world of industry and commerce. That


seems to be discriminating in favour of one small section of the community as against the general body. I would ask, too, for some explanation of what is meant by Clause 1 (2), which states that all service as Governor-General of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan shall be counted as though it had been rendered in the Civil Service of this country. Again under Sub-section (3) there is a pre-dating, an allowing of all the service prior to 1936 to count if it is served in the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Why is this favour being shown to work in that part of the world? There is also the point that the Bill is retrospective to 1st January of this year. I hope this regard that is being paid to those who have been Governors of Dominions will also be shown to our people when they come forward for pensions or for benefits to which they have been entitled, but which have been refused to them up to the present. The number of people affected is small, but it is hardly fair that we should be asked to hand out pensions to these people while refusing them to the great bulk of the community engaged in industry and commerce.

8.17 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I am delighted to have the opportunity of doing my best to explain a Bill the Financial Resolution of which was prepared by one Secretary of State, the Second Reading conducted by another and the Committee stage by a third. The two hon. Members who have spoken have, quite rightly, stressed the importance of the fullest explanations being given when we are voting public money. But I should like to disabuse their minds on one or two things to start with. No doubt the short Title of the Bill is somewhat misleading. It talks about the Governors of Dominions. That is the title of a series of Acts which include matters concerned with the pensions not only of Governors-General of Dominions but of ex-Governors of Colonies, Protectorates and Mandated Territories, and it is desired by this Bill to remove anomalies in regard to the pensions payable, not in such comparatively rare cases as that of the hon. Member of this House who was for a short time Governor of Kenya, but to those who go in as young

men and have been all their lives in one or other of the colonial services and have been promoted from one Colony or Protectorate to another and some few of whom reach the top of the professional tree. The Bill is introduced for two purposes, first to do what we believe is equitable between Governor and Governor, between one civil servant and another, and secondly, to do what I regard as a much more important thing—to free the hands of the Secretary of State for the Colonies in tendering advice to His Majesty as to who should be made Governors of these Dependencies from the difficulty under which he finds himself on account of the existing pensions law.
To deal with the first point first, if a Governor has served for many years in the Colonial service, he gets a pension partly paid by the several Colonies in which he has served according to the rate paid in the particular grade that he has reached. A governor draws his pension through the Crown Agents on the account of many Colonies and it is always a complicated business. But when he ceases to be a civil servant in the Colonial service and becames a governor, he for the first time comes on the taxpayers of this country. Ambassadors and governors have always had their pensions, not for the whole of their service but for the final part, paid not by the colony but by the Votes of this House. Therefore in literally every one of these cases you are dealing not with a man who is in what, I think, the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) called "comfortable circumstances," but with men who have worked their way in the Colonial service up to the top. tinder the existing Act they get some pension as governors, but they do not get the full rate to which they are entitled under the Act of 1929 unless they have served as full governor for 10 years, and what they receive if they have not served 10 years from this House and the British taxpayers is a pension not at the governor's rate but at the rate of their last employment before they were governors.
The Bill will not, of course, affect governors who under the existing Act get the full rate of pension, which varies from colony to colony. They do not come under this even if they have served more than 10 years. Equally they will not come under it if they have under three


years' service, and in fact that sets a limit. There are some 40 odd colonial depencies, including protectorates and mandated territories, and the number of cases that are likely to arise is roughly about two a year. Quite a number, of course, have in fact the 10 years' qualification, but you often get this case, that a man fully worthy of promotion gets promoted, say, in the late fifties. After he has been Governor for four, five or six years, and is about 60, his health affects his efficiency. You cannot say that he is to be kicked out of the Service as medically unfit, and there is a tendency to keep him on as long as possible, but it is not always in the interests of his health or of the Service.
The existing law certainly creates difficulties there, and I want to take the particular instance which has necessitated, admittedly, the Sub-section in Clause 1, namely, the retrospective Sub-section. It is a very typical example, and I am sure that the individual concerned will not mind my mentioning his name and stating the full particulars. There retired after a long life in the Colonial Service, after the Financial Resolution had been passed, Sir Reginald Johnston, who ended up as Governor of the Leeward Islands. He spent most of his service as a young man in the Pacific Islands, Fiji and the like, and then went to the Falkland Islands, then to St. Kitts, and ended up as Governor of the Leeward Islands in the West Indies. He had between 20 and 30 years' service in the Colonial Service before he became Governor, and he served six years as Governor. From the various Colonies in which he served before he became Governor he accumulated pension rights amounting in all to £457 5s. 6d. per annum, and under the existing Act his pension as Governor, after six years' service as Governor of the Leeward Islands, amounts to £94 17s. 6d. a year, because it is calculated on his rate of pay as a Colonial Secretary in the last appointment he served as Colonial Secretary before he became a Governor.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Was he contributing anything towards the pension out of his salary?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Oh, yes, up to the time when he became a Governor. If this Bill had become law that £94 17s. 6d. would have been £211. That

is to say he would get, after six years' service as Governor, a governor's pension at governors' pension rates.

Mr. TINKER: What would be the total?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The total would be £210 in respect of the last six years as Governor, plus £457 5s. 6d.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is nearly £700.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, and I state frankly that it is not at all excessive for a man who has wandered about the Colonies in the service of the Crown, having held responsible positions, and having had to live a life, particularly as Governor, in which he has had to entertain freely—and anyone who has been to these smaller Colonies knows what is expected of the Governor—to retire on a pension of £700 a year. I want to make it clear that the figure of £2,000 in the Financial Resolution is what we think is the maximum. You always have to give an outside possible maximum of the total of the year. We calculated that all these additional pensions will be for people whose pensions will range between £100 and £700 a year. The people who get the big pensions, get them under the existing Act because they will have served ten years as Governor. The Bill is designed to bring in and to treat more equitably the Governors of the smaller Colonies who do not, for one reason or another, last the full ten years. We believe that it is in the interest of the Service that they should be given pensions at the Governors' rate. The point which is more important, to my mind, is the freedom of selection of the Secretary of State.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman making out a case to us on behalf of a certain official or Governor who will be retiring on a pension of not less than £700 a year? Is the right hon. Gentleman making a case for an increase? I want to be clear on the point.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: In the case of a Governor who would, under the existing Act, get a pension of £552 a year, I am asking the House to give a pension of £668. That is the difference.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with the £500.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That is what I am pointing out.

Mr. PRITT: Surely there must have been some reason in the past for the anomaly which it is now considered should be removed. Why is it that hitherto Governors have had their pensions at Colonial Secretary rates?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The House has always been very apprehensive of giving pensions to people who, say, are appointed as Governor-General of Canada for five years or so. The origin of the ten-year limit was entirely in order to keep out of the pensions sphere the political Governor or Governor appointed by this House. Here the Bill is advisedly and expressly limited to the Colonial Civil Service, and Sub-section (2), with which I will deal in a moment, deals with that matter. I hope that I have made these points clear. I have made a clean breast of what I might call the retrospective case of the one individual who retired this year. There is the point which was raised by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) in regard to the Sudan.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The right hon. Gentleman was going to tell us about the difficulties of selection.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There are few more responsible tasks for any Secretary of State than the selection of the top men in these Colonial administrations. Owing to the operation of these particular pension scales there is a tendency for him to appoint as Governor a man who will last for 10 years and cut out men who, perhaps, will only last, in his opinion, for five years, in full health. Take Colonies like West Africa with a tropical climate which, of course, is much better than it was in the old days. It is very undesirable to select as Governor a man who is not in robust health, or to keep him there after he has reached a certain age. It may be that the man you would appoint would be a very good man and make a very good Governor for five years, but you have to consider that in order to get his equitable pension as Governor he has to stay on for 10 years. Such a man does not get appointed. It is limitation on the freedom of choice of the Secretary of State that the law should be what it is to-day. I profoundly regret that it was not removed long ago.
The case of the Sudan is somewhat novel. It is a service quite apart from the Colonial service, and there have been practically no cases of interchange. In recent years there have been cases of interchange, and I do not mind in the least giving the name of the individual for whom the Sub-section is really designed. It is Sir G. Stewart Symes, who is Governor-General of the Sudan. When I first met him he was in the service of the Sudan under General Wingate. Then he became District Commissioner in Palestine just after the War, then Chief Secretary for Palestine, and afterwards Governor of Tanganyika. Then he went back as Governor of his old country at Khartum and he is still serving. When he went from Tanganyika to Khartum the Chief Secretary in the Sudan service took his place as Governor of Tanganyika. It is most desirable in a case like this, where you have men who have put in distinct service in the Sudan and Tanganyika, that there should not be the statutory bar which exists at present to the usual continuity of pension rights, and Sub-section (2) will enable these Governors to get the benefit of the existing Governors' pension rights. I do not think that there is much more information I can give the Committee. There are only about 14 Governors. They are a very limited class, but they are among the most responsible servants of the Crown, as they are responsible for about 50,000,000 people. I am quite sure that they are a most deserving class of civil servants, of whom this country has always been proud. I cannot speak too highly of the quality of the Colonial service, especially of those who reach the top during their career.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. LUNN: I feel sure that if we had had the speech to which we have just listened on the Second Reading of the Bill we should have completed the Debate upon it on that occasion. On the 20th February we had no explanation whatever of what the Bill intended to do, and we have been waiting ever since for the explanation. We have changed the Colonial Secretary every year for a number of years, and I will admit that the present Colonial Secretary knows the colonies perhaps better than anyone since 1931. I am not saying anything about his general policy; we shall have to postpone our congratulations until we have


heard his speech on the Estimates. Personally, the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has given to-night is one which I cannot contradict and with which I cannot disagree. He has stated the position very fairly and very squarely. A Blue Paper was published two days ago which said that certain information could be obtained as regards Governors and their pensions. I could not get the information in the Vote Office, but in the Library I saw the position as it was in 1935. The right hon. Gentleman has said that on an average two Governors retire every year. Last year there were three, Sir Donald Cameron, Sir William Peel and Sir Reginald Johnston. Without a doubt these three men have been capable Government servants and, indeed, we have heard many compliments as to the long and admirable service to the Colonial Empire of Sir Donald Cameron.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I would like to point out that he would get the maximum pension under the existing Act. He was Governor of Tanganyika and Governor of Nigeria for more than 10 years, and as they are both first-class governorships, he would get the maximum rate.

Mr. LUNN: These men have not been appointed casually to these positions. They have been living in the tropics to a large extent all their lives or they have been in the Colonial service, and they have rendered good service to the State. I do not intend to oppose these pensions. I want pensions to be given to a great many more people, and I want to see better pensions paid to millions. These men spend the greater part of their life in climates in which most of us would not like to live and they have not great prospects of living long after they get their pensions. I feel that this Bill to amend the Acts of 1911 and 1929 so that these men will receive Governors' pensions after being Governors for three years, is not a very serious matter. As I said on the Second Reading, I do not wish to divide on this matter. I am not complaining about anything that may be said or has been said in the matter, and I think hon. Members have been perfectly justified in criticising the attitude of the previous Colonial Secretary in not giving information. We now have that information and it is such that I shall not vote against the Bill to-night.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. BATEY: I wish to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the very full explanations he has given. Had they been given on the last occasion when this matter was before us, the passage of the Bill might have been easier. Nevertheless, there is still difficulty in understanding the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about clearing up same difficulties which he felt ought to have been cleared up long ago. When he was moving the Second Reading of the 1929 Act he said:
Clause 3 is to clear up technical defects in the existing Acts under which no pension can be granted to an ex-Civil Service Governor who has not completed 10 years as Governor and has not reached the age of 60 and for whom no further employment is available."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1929; col. 2412, Vol. 225.]
In the 1929 Act we were dealing with ex-Civil Service governors and now in 1936 we are dealing with precisely the same thing. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the reason why the matter was not cleared up in 1929 was that then the real object was to get au increase in the pensions for governors. I wanted to bring a copy of the 1911 Act into the House, but I could not find one, and I would like in passing to say that when a Member wishes to lay his hands on an Act of Parliament for the purposes of Debate he ought to be able to get it. The 1911 Act deals with this question very fully. It not only decides that the governors should have 10 years service before they claim a pension, but that they must be 60 years of age. It laid down that the pension should not be more than £1,400, which was raised in the 1929 Act to £2,000, and that where the Governor is drawing a pension for something else, his governor's pension must be reduced.
The Bill now before us reduces the ten years mentioned in the 1911 Act to three years. This thing has not been done in a hurry, and we have had long years of experience. The original Act was passed in 1911, and 18 years after, in 1929, it was amended; and at that time it was not thought necessary to reduce the period of ten years which the Governor must serve before receiving a pension. This Bill proposes to reduce the period to three years and the big pensions that were fixed on the basis of the ten years period still stand. That is one of the things against


which we are glad to have the opportunity of making a protest. We wish to use these pensions to Governors for the purpose of making a protest, because we believe that so far as pensions are concerned the working class of this country have the first claim to consideration. We want justice to be given to the working class first.
I agree that the right hon. Gentleman tried to give as much information as possible on this first Clause. In connection with this Clause the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) raised the question of the Sudan. Clause 1 (2) reads:
A person who has served as a Governor on or after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, and who, before his appointment as a Governor, has served in the office of Governor-General of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, shall be treated, for the purpose of the preceding Subsection, as if his service in that office had been service in the permanent Civil Service of the State.
What do the words "served in the office of Governor-General of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan" mean? Do they mean any person who has served as an office boy in that office? The wording is not very good, because one would say that the period which a person served as an office boy in the office could be taken into account in calculating the period for the purpose of a Governor's pension. Subsection (1) contains the words:
Where a person who has served as a Governor was immediately before his appointment as a Governor employed in service in the permanent Civil Service of the State, then, if he has completed not less than three years' service, etc.
Surely that should read:
when he has completed not less than three years' service.
It seems to me that the Bill has been drafted in a hurry. Further, Subsection (5) provides that it shall come into operation on 1st January, 1936. That is retrospective legislation and this House of Commons is always condemning retrospective legislation.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. PRITT: This Bill illustrates a question of principle which is not the less important because it is with us always. I am capable of understanding the point of view of the middle classes and I understand the point of view of those who hold that an ex-Governor should

not be asked to live on less than £700 or £800 a year in his retirement, whether the money be subscribed by the British taxpayer or by the grateful negroes of the various Colonies where he has served. But there are two reasons which will compel me, if the Committee is divided on this Clause, to vote against it. First, I feel it my duty to object at all times to the principle that some people are worth many thousand times what other people are worth, when, in my view, there is little if any difference between them. The second, which is almost more important, is the consideration that when poor people require to have an anomaly cleared up they are lucky if it is cleared up in 15 years—unless of course it is to be cleared up against their interests. But the moment you get the case of a, small group of highly placed persons you can have an anomaly cleared up for them, I will not say in five minutes, because this Bill has taken six months, but at all events very quickly, on the small assumption that the Minister in charge of the Bill shall know something about it—which in this instance is the case to-day, and which was not the case a little time ago.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: I am at a loss to understand this Clause 1. Like previous speakers, I cannot see why certain people in the State should receive pensions after serving for only 10 years. Clause 1 apparently means that if a person has served three years as a Governor and seven years in the Civil Service he is to be entitled to a pension. The Bill does not say what is to be the age of retirement. It does not say anywhere that the person retiring must be 60 years of age. A man may receive very quick promotion, and at the end of his promotion, if he has served three years as a Governor and seven years in the Civil Service, he can receive a pension as though he had served as Governor for 10 years.
Hon. Members on this side have been asking for a good many years that miners should be entitled to pensions at the age of 60. Some of the men who now sit on these benches and many of the men who are working in the mines to-day started work at the age of 12. I did so, and when I started work in the pits I did not see daylight from Sunday evening at


teatime until the following Saturday at half-past 1 o'clock. I went down the pit in the morning in the dark and I came up again in the evening in the dark. In those days I aspired to become a professional footballer, but I could never do my training except when the moon was up and then one could hardly see the ball. Starting work at 12, I have worked for 48 years in the pit. There are many other men in that position, but we cannot get pensions. But the ex-governor is to have a right good salary and is to get a pension of anything up to £700 a year, after serving 10 years.
I say, emphatically, that we shall oppose this Clause. We are not prepared to agree that these rights should be conferred on a man who has served 10 years in a capacity which is certainly not as laborious as that of the miner and which, though it may be important, is not any more important than the getting of coal. I know that certain people will smile at that statement, but if there were no coal-getters, if there were no workers at the bottom end of the scale, the people at the top would not have any jobs at all. We feel that there should, at least, be consideration for these facts and this is one of the few opportunities which we get for expressing that point of view.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. De CHAIR: I support the Bill and I regret the attitude of the Opposition on this point. I feel that their attack is based on a misconception of the Government and Conservative attitude. Because the Government desire to give this increase of pensions to these governors, it does not mean that they are preferring the governors to people in industry, such as the miners. Everybody would like to see pensions for miners, but the question of cost must be taken into consideration and surely it is rather "dog-in-the-manger" attitude to argue that because you are not willing to spend several millions a year in raising Old Age Pensions, you should refuse to give this increase of existing pensions which is only going to cost £2,000 a year. I feel that the governors of our colonies and protectorates are particularly deserving of recognition. They serve, heaven knows, under most uncomfortable conditions in the tropics and in climates which are often detrimental to their health. I do not think it unreasonable to ask that they should receive this consideration.
A previous speaker asked why this legislation was not amended in 1929 when it came up for consideration. I think the Colonial Secretary made it clear that the House was anxious not to make the pensions applicable to Governors of a political character who are sent out to the Dominions and only serve for five years or so. I imagine that the reason why some change of this nature was not introduced in 1929 was because it was felt that it would apply to the Governors of Dominions who have probably private means and for whom it was not thought that pensions were so necessary. This Clause specifically ties down the provision to Governors who have served not less than three years as Governor and in addition have been members of the Civil Service. The point raised by the last speaker would be of unusual application because very few people would attain Governorships after only seven years in the Colonial service. Although I see the point of that argument, I do not think that it is likely to come up very often in application. The general principle overcomes the difficulty which the Government previously had, and will enable the House to give the pension to those Governors who have served in the Civil Service and are eminently deserving of it.

9.6 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I would not have intervened if the hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. De Chair) had not spoken. He is a member of that group of Tories known as the Young Men's Christian Association which always gives lip-service to very desirable improvements of the conditions of the working-class, but gives its votes for the improvement of another class. The hon. Member said that we must remember that, after all, this is only a very little sum—£2,000—which is for a small group of people. This House is always giving away sums to small groups of people, and that is precisely what we object to. We want to see the sums going to the masses of the people. If all those people who are in similar positions to Governors, who, I am sure, deserve everything they can get, were prepared to live on a standard of life similar to that in the coal mines, there would be plenty for pensions for coal miners. However unpleasant it is to be a Governor of a Colony, it is more unpleasant to work


thousands of feet down in a coal mine. Also, the mortality rate among coal miners is higher than it is among Colonial Governors. The accidents from the explosions that take place in pits are more frequent than similar accidents in Governors' houses in the various Colonies. If we are to compare it on the basis of the unpleasantness of one job or another, everybody will agree that the coal miner has it every time. Therefore, we rule out the question of unpleasantness.
The other argument of the hon. Gentleman justifying this discrimination in favour of this particular class is that there are very few of them and that, therefore, we can afford to make this small contribution. That is a typical Conservative argument; you can always afford to do a lot for the few. We do not accept that. We believe that you must start by doing things for the mass, even if you can only do a little for them. Of course, as long as you preserve the existing system, you can do very little for them. That is why we want to get rid of it. Even with the existing system you can do a little more; you can reduce the pension age a little and improve the old age pensions a little; you can take

away the means test a little and do various other things for the benefit of the people. I cannot see any conceivable justification for giving to these Governors, however great their services may be, an increase over what was decided in 1929 to be sufficient. There are no circumstances, such as a rise in the cost of living, which should induce us to give this money to this selected class when the far wider class is being neglected by the Government. If the Government were bringing this forward as part of a general scheme of pensions for those people who had served the State in their various capacities, I should not stand in the way of it, but when it is brought forward as an isolated example of generosity, and when economy rules everywhere else, the right hon. Gentleman must not be surprised if he finds that those of us who have continually pressed for some increase in the living conditions of the great mass of the people in this country think that this is a piece of favouritism with which they cannot agree.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 166; Noes, 89.

Division No. 231.]
AYES.
[9.11 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
De Chair, S. S.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Albery, I. J.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Donner, P. W.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.


Assheton, R.
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Atholl, Duchess of
Duncan, J. A. L.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Eales, J. F.
Liddall, W. S.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Entwistle, C. F.
Lindsay, K. M.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Errington, E.
Little, Sir E. Graham


Beit, Sir A. L.
Erskine Hill. A. G.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Bernays, R. H.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Loftus, P. C.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Foot, D. M.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Blaker, Sir R.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Lumley, Capt. L. R.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Ganzoni, Sir J.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Bracken, B.
Glucksteln, L. H.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Brass, Sir W.
Goldie, N. B.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Macmillan. H. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Butler, R. A.
Grimston. R. V.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Maitland, A.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Guy, J. C. M.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon H. D. R.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hanbury, Sir C.
Markham, S. F.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br.W.)
Hannah, I. C.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Mayhew. Lt.-Col. J.


Clarke, F. E.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Hudson, R, S. (Southport)
Moreing, A. C.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Hunter, T.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
James, Wing-commander A. W.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Joel, D. J. B.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.


Dawson, Sir P.
Keeling. E. H.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.




Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Palmer, G. E. H.
Rowlands, G.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Peake, O.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Penny, Sir G.
Salt, E. W.
Titchfield. Marquess of


Perkins, W. R. D.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Touche, G. C.


Pilkington, R.
Savery, Servington
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Selley, H. R.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Radford, E. A.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Turton, R. H.


Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Shepperson. Sir E. W.
Wakefield, W. W.


Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Ramsbotham, H.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
White, H. Graham


Ramsden, Sir E.
Somerset, T.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Reed, A C. (Exeter)
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.



Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Spens, W. p.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Reid, W. Allen (Derby)
Storey, S.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert-


Remer, J. R.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Ward and Captain Waterhouse.


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Strickland, Captain W. F.





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Muff, G.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Parker, J.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Parkinson, J. A.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hardie, G. D.
Potts, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Price, M. P.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pritt, D. N.


Batey, J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Benson, G.
Hollins, A.
Riley, B.


Broad, F. A.
Jagger, J.
Ritson, J.


Bromfield, W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Rowson, G.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Salter, Dr. A.


Cassells, T.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sexton, T. M.


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Chater, D.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Compton, J.
Kirkwood, D.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Daggar, G.
Lawson, J. J.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Dalton, H.
Leach, W.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leonard, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Dobble, W.
Leslle, J. R.
Walkden, A. G.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Logan, D. G.
Watkins, F. C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Lunn, W.
Watson, W. McL.


Gardner, B. W.
McGovern, J.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Maclean, N.
Williams. E. J. (Ogmore)


Glbbins, J.
Marklew, E.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Marshall, F.



Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Messer, F.
TELLERS FOR THS NOES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Milner, Major J.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


Grenfell, D. R.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)



Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Taking into account of service in Sudan Civil Service.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

9.18 p.m.

Mr. BATEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly explain what it is that this Clause does?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: This Clause is intended to deal with the Egyptian-Anglo-Sudan position, which I thought I had explained clearly. It is to allow a Sudan Civil servant to draw a pension as Governor of a Colony, treating him as if he had been a Colonial Civil servant; and, vice versa, if a Colonial Civil servant becomes Governor-General in the Sudan, he can get a pension.

CLAUSE 3.—(Special pensions in respect of Governor's service preceding ser vice as Governor-General of Sudan.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

9.20 p.m.

Mr. BATEY: The right hon. Gentleman will notice that there is a paragraph in this Clause which makes an alteration in the Act of 1929. The paragraph reads:
Every minute of the Secretary of State or the Treasury granting a pension under this sub-section to a person who retires from the said office on the ground of age, before attaining the age of 60 years, shall set forth the amount of the pension and the reasons for the grant, and shall be laid before Parliament.


The Act of 1911 laid down the conditions that the Governor must have had 10 years' service and be 60 years of age before he could draw a pension. This Clause seems to allow a. Governor to retire on pension before he is 60 years of age. Can the Governor receive a pension before he is 60 years of age, contrary to the Act of 1911?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, on a medical certificate countersigned by the Secretary of State.

Mr. BATEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us where the medical certificate comes in?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The medical certificate comes in in the reference to the minute. The Secretary of State has to be satisfied that by reason of his service his health is such that he ought to retire before the age of 60.

Mr. BATEY: But there is nothing in this Bill to say that there must be a medical certificate.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: My recollection is that there was something in the Act of 1929 to make it clear that he can retire before the ordinary pensionable age if by reason of his service his health does not permit him to continue in office.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. KELLY: There is nothing in this Clause about health conditions. It speaks about retiring on the ground of age, and age only, talks only about retiring before the age of 60. This seems to give an opportunity for him to retire without regard to his health, if only the Minister is satisfied.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, I think that is true. This certificate which has to be issued by the Secretary of State and countersigned by the Treasury, is in the form of a certificate having relation to age; but in many cases that would undoubtedly be clone on medical advice, only it is not for the medical officer to decide but for the Secretary of State to decide. It could be issued on the grounds that though he is fit in this country, not suffering from organic disease, it would be undesirable, having regard to his age and general condition, to send him back to the Tropics. It might also be because he had reached the retiring age for the

Tropics and there was no further employment in view for him.

Mr. BATEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this point before the Bill goes to another place in order to make sure what the position is?

9.23 p.m.

Mr. WATKINS: Is what is involved in this anything more than the usual arrangement which is common, I think, to all superannuation schemes and which permits the granting of a breakdown or invalidity pension on the strength of medical evidence?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I fancy that is so, but I will look into the exact position. I think it is the kind of provision which is in most superannuation Acts.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: This Clause speaks only about a man who retires before the age of 60 on the ground of age, not of sickness or inability. He can retire before 60 though he may be "as sound as a bell," according to this Clause.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. LUNN: The Colonial Secretary, who is new to his office, has promised to look into this matter; but this all shows that even small Bills, as they are called, ought to be carefully considered. And where are the right hon. Gentleman's advisers? If they are here they ought to know what the position is. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that the provision to enable a man to retire on this excuse before he is 60 years of age may be found in the 1929 Act. It may be, but why is not the 1929 Act here so that we could know what is the fact? I am prepared to accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that he will look into the matter, but we ought to have had the information before.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I must defend my adviser. He has sent me a further communication on this rather complicated point. The effect of the Clause is to allow a Governor to retire at approximately the Civil Service retiring age of the tropical colonies, and this is merely extending to the man who goes to the Sudan what is already provided in the 1929 Act for the Colonial Civil Service Governors.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

BEAMISH COLLIERY, COUNTY DURHAM (DISPUTE).

Motion made, and Question proposed, ''That this House do now adjourn."— [Commander Southby.]

9.27 p.m.

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: In accordance with notice given some time ago I desire to raise for the information and sympathy of the House the case of miners in Beamish Mary Pit, County Durham. These men are suffering very great injustices. They have been disallowed unemployment benefit amounting to the sum of about £7,000. The dispute in question, in the judgment of the umpire, is due to a strike. The workers, on the contrary, emphatically deny this contention and declare that they were locked out and that ended a particular agreement which affected their special employment. The particular case is that of a certain seam known as the Brock-well Seam. It is a most difficult seam. The coal was originally worked by means of a coal cutter, but in December, 1934, the colliery management met the men and asked whether they would agree that this coal should be worked by means of the pneumatic pick. That is virtually hand labour, to be worked by the miners, and such an agreement was drawn up. Clause 1 states that the work should be done by workmen who should volunteer to do such work and should, if considered suitable for this particular class of machine mining, be ultimately subject to selection by the management of the colliery. It is important for the House to note this particular agreement.
Why should there be a Clause of this description? The reason for it is that this seam is one of the most difficult to work. In the judgment of ordinary people, human beings ought not to be asked to work it under the conditions that have been drawn up and with the result that a sufficiency of men have never been obtainable to work this coal

with the pneumatic pick. The House should remember that it was originally worked by means of a coal cutter. The burden of the work was taken by the machine, but the management felt that coal was not as marketable obtained in that way and, therefore, they have endeavoured to have it worked by the pneumatic pick—by the miners themselves in effect. The seam is only from 18 to 21 inches in height. The floor is known as a wet floor, continually wet. The roof is wet and is continually dripping. In order to work the coal the miner slides in on his side and has to cut the coal by holding a pneumatic pick, from 18 to 28 lbs. in weight, worked by compressed air. This is held in his arms. The machine vibrates at a very great speed and dense fumes of blinding dust are exuded. Nerves and muscles are racked, and I have myself seen at the inquiry held across the road men with swollen wrists and shoulders as a result of a short experience in this seam. The seam is further worse than an ordinary seam, because in about 12 inches of the coal there is stone and foreign matter which makes it extremely difficult to get the pneumatic pick working. Even the coal cutter could not work sufficiently effectively against this material. Medical testimony after men had worked a short time was produced as to the injuries inflicted on the older and weaker men, but the determination of the management was quite definite that all and sundry as ordered, not as volunteers, should enter this seam and work the coal.
This is the result. The agreement was made on 28th December, 1934, but an insufficiency of men volunteered for the work. In July, 1935, a considerable number of men, hewers, putters and stone-men, the latter not having been used at all to the pneumatic pick, were dismissed by the management, but before their 14 days' notices terminated they were offered work in this Brockwell low seam. The men refused to undertake the work, as many of them were old fellows. They replied that they wanted to return to their own work and they applied for unemployment benefit, which was allowed them. The same thing occurred in the August of last year, but again unemployment benefit was allowed them.
On 14th September of last year, as there was still an insufficiency of men to work this coal, the whole of the colliery, with the exception of 30 men who had volunteered and were carrying out the work, were dismissed. The case which I am bringing before the House is that these men were dismissed from their employment, were charged with being on strike and unemployment benefit was disallowed them. They applied for benefit, the management advised that this was a strike and no benefit was allowed. The men applied to the court of referees. With some sense of justice they agreed that of the dismissed men, the 135 hewers were alone involved, out of the total of 405. It must have been a very unfortunate court of referees, inasmuch as of the three persons who constituted it the workmen's representative happened to be a transport worker and not a miner. They contended that the phrase "volunteers shall be asked for" did not mean what it stated, that the men were asked and that there was a dispute as to the suitability of the pneumatic pick in that seam. That could not have been an accurate description of the position, because 30 men were engaged with the pneumatic pick in that low seam and, by the agreement of the Durham Miners' Association with the management, any man who could at any time volunteer for the work was entitled to do so. I will mention the types of labour which were asked to undertake the work and were declared to be on strike: hewers, day hands, shifters, putters, stonemen, cutters, drivers, engine lads, surface hands and checkweighmen. With the exception of the hewers, not one of those classes was concerned with the dispute, but even boys of from 14 to 18 years of age were brought in and declared to be on strike.
The matter came before the Umpire and I attended and heard the evidence given on the men's side and on the masters' side. I think that any dispassionate person would have felt that there was an overwhelming case in favour of the men. The Umpire decided otherwise. I have the record of his statement, giving his judgment. He says that the court of referees were unanimous in holding that the stoppage of work which began in the Beamish Colliery, Mary

pit, on 14th September, 1935, was due to a trade dispute. How can it be due to a trade dispute when 14 days' notice was handed to the men and, before the notice terminated, the men were offered work in this low seam, work which some of them undertook but others declined to do and were dismissed? Then the Umpire stated that the management and the men concerned
have all along been in disagreement as to the meaning of the words in Clause 1 of the agreement 'volunteers shall be asked for,' and as to the purpose and the effect of the agreement.
Obviously there has been a dispute if the owners of the colliery are determined that, although an agreement exists, they will force men to labour in this particular section of the mine. The Umpire goes on to say:
The results of the agreement, however, show how determined and general was the opposition on the part of the men to accepting the use of the pneumatic pick as a condition of work in the Brockwell seam, because the number of men who voluntarily accepted the terms and conditions of the agreement were quite negligible.
Certainly they were negligible, because the conditions were inhuman. There was an abundance of medical evidence submitted to show that the men who had attempted for two or three days to do the work, were shaking as though they had the ague, that their sight was affected, and that their general condition indicated that this was not work fit under modern conditions for human beings to undertake. It was only by my asking a question in this House in December that the men could get a decision from the Umpire—whether he was too busy or what was happening I do not know—and it was only at the end of December that the hearing was given by the Umpire, with the result which I have indicated.
When the verdict was given, the men had reached the stage of starvation. They were starved and beaten. I have seen the sheet in which they collected small sums of money from colleagues, from friends and from neighours, in order to maintain themselves and their families. During the period of the dispute, from the end of September until January, no public assistance was allowed to the families, except to the wives and children, on loan, so that many of the men were in a relatively famished con-


dition. They were beaten in January of this year into submission. They went in a body to the management and said, "We will abrogate the agreement; we will work in this seam." They did so, and the result was to bear out the very contention which the men had made all along that the only person who should be asked to go down and work under those conditions were the young men who could best stand the inhuman strain. I have a letter from the management indicating the position. It is addressed to R. Jarman, Secretary, Mary Pit Lodge:
With reference to the new men who started with the pneumatic pick in Brock-well seam for pay 3, ending 18th January, I beg to draw your attention to the fact that, with the average actual earnings for the month at 3s. 7d. per shift, the amount of money necessary to bring these men up to the minimum wage is £43 18s., practically equivalent to what they have earned.
It goes on to say:
There are many men who have started in the Brockwell seam who are totally unfitted for the work.…Kindly let me know when it will be convenient for you to send a deputation.
On 6th February there was this further letter:
With further reference to your letter, and my reply of February 4th. concerning men who have been cavilled to the Brock-well seam for pneumatic pick work, and whom we have found unsuitable for this class of work, I … regret that the members of your Lodge cannot agree with my suggestion that these men should be exchanged into the Busty seam for men now working at the Busty who would be possibly more suitable for the Brockwell seam.
Then he says:
As I have already pointed out to you, the position which has been created in the Brockwell seam owing to these men being unable to get reasonable results with the pneumatic picks is an impossible one. I am obliged, therefore, to dispense with these men.
I trust that your Lodge may reconsider their previous decision on this matter, in order that we may continue to keep these men in employment at the colliery, as, in my opinion, their inability to get satisfactory results at present is mainly due to their being unsuited to the conditions. I may add "—
and this is a very vital matter—
that a number of these men have already left the colliery rather than continue this work.
The ages of many of the men who were driven down by starvation to undertake

this work were 40, 45, and so on. The manager of this colliery got a verdict in favour of the colliery owner. If this had occurred in any of our shipyards, what would have been thought of such a situation? What would have been thought of a manager going into a shipyard, dismissing all the men, and, at the end of 14 days, saying, "If some of you will undertake work in which you may injure your health, your eyesight, your hearing, your nerves, you can have it"? The whole of the North-East Coast would have been up in arms. If this had taken place in any other walk of industry than mining, where professional slavery is carried out and is the order of the day, the most tyrannous type of manager being employed to exploit the maximum out of the men, the whole nation would have been aroused by it. In this case the unemployment Authorities agreed that the boys could not be involved in this matter and granted them unemployment benefit for the period of the dispute. I received an application, which I sent to the Minister of Labour, to consider the very hard cases of three lamp men, men who had each lost a leg in the Great War and who cleaned and repaired the safety lamps for their colleagues underground. I was asked to use my influence with the Minister on behalf of these poor fellows, who have large families, who have been robbed of their employment, and who were anxious to go back to their lamp work but not permitted to do so because they were alleged to be on strike.
That is my case. I think I have demonstrated that, on the showing of the management of the colliery themselves, there is fresh evidence to be considered. We say that these men are suffering from a double hardship and injustice, which ought not to be tolerated by this House; that they have had a verdict against them entirely out of harmony with the evidence submitted, and, secondly, the refusal of the Umpire, in spite of the appeals of myself, the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), and possibly of the Minister of Labour himself, to re-open the case, to hear fresh evidence. What injustice would the reopening of the case be to any human being. It would not cost money—if it did, the miners would be willing to bear the cost—and it would reveal the fact, which other people do not know, but which I have revealed to-night, that the


management themselves say that the question of suitability must be considered. The Umpire was completely oblivious to all questions of suitability and said that this was a dispute because the workmen did not want to work a pneumatic pick in this low and dangerous seam, when, from the time the agreement was made till the present moment, there have been members of the Durham Miners Association, young, sturdy men who are willing to risk their lives—because there is increased danger of roof falls—working in this seam. Therefore, I ask the House and I ask the Minister of Labour—these miners are friends and colleagues of my own—to use whatever influence they can to secure that the Umpire should give a rehearing in this phenomenally harsh case.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I am sure the hon. Member who has just addressed the House, by the concise way in which he has put his case, and by the facts which he has so calmly and yet vividly stated, has not only commanded the attention, respect, and sympathy of the House, but has also put a case which really must have reconsideration from the Ministry of Labour. I was not surprised when this case arose, although I was surprised that it arose at this particular colliery. It is nearly two years since I spoke to the Secretary for Mines, long before this type of case arose, and pointed out to him that it was almost inevitable that when these pneumatic picks began to be applied in mines there would be very great difficulty, and that if the matter was not watched there would be very grave need for anticipating many cases for compensation, through nerves. Hon. Member's will have seen men using pneumatic drills on the roads, and they will have wondered, as they saw the machines vibrating, what the effect was upon the men using them, even though they were working with them in the open air and in the light of day.

Mr. HARDIE: And standing up straight.

Mr. LAWSON: And standing up. It may be said that these machines used in the pit are not so large, but they are certainly very heavy. Let me tell the House what happens. I know this particular seam. It is no higher than the

seats in this House. The seats here are from 18 to 20 inches high. The men are working in a seam of 21 inches and are lying on their sides with these machines against their shoulders, vibrating against them all the time, in a narrow space of some yards, and with a height of only 21 inches. A man came to see me from this colliery, before the dispute arose. He told me that he had worked several years, I think he said about 10 years, on the long wall face with a machine cutter, and that generally speaking he liked that class of work, but he was all shaking. He said that he had been put on to this pneumatic pick work, and I shall never forget seeing him as he stood before me, trembling, asking what we were going to do about it and whether we were going to do something in Parliament about it. I have known that district for 25 years. The colliery is in my hon. Friend's division but it is on the edge of my own division. In the whole of the 25 years I have never known any local colliery dispute among these men. They are the most reasonable, quiet body of men I have ever known.

Mr. HARDIE: They must be.

Mr. LAWSON: They certainly are. That is why I say that I was surprised to find trouble coming from that colliery, because as a rule the men have been so patient. I know this particular seam. In the pit next to it, in regard to the same sort of seam I had on one occasion to arbitrate on the men's behalf in order to fix prices. I wish that I could describe to the House the sensation that I experienced in crawling sideways into the seam. I should like to be able to convey to the House what it means working in this class of pit, with vibration affecting the nerves of the men and generally putting them into a very difficult position. My hon. Friend reminds me that there are times when these men have to lie in water and to lie on their sides and work these pneumatic machines.
When the manager wanted to work this seam with the pneumatic pick, and the prices were fixed, it was considered reasonable that there should be a clause put in the agreement saying that he must not compel the men to do this class of work, but that he must rely upon volunteers. There is no denying that that clause is in the agreement. The


manager did not get his volunteers, and I do not wonder that he failed to get them. The most experienced miner in the varied classes of seams, the men who can adapt themselves to different classes of work, would be well entitled to refuse that class of work, particularly as that particular clause is in the agreement. However, when the manager did not get a sufficient number of volunteers, he proceeded to try and interpret that clause in the agreement, or to whittle it down, in order to make out that it did not necessarily mean that he had to wait for men to volunteer. When he gave the men their notices because they would not volunteer we claimed that they were entitled to unemployment benefit. The manager went before the court of referees and the umpire and claimed that the clause had another meaning.
Our point is that here is a new class of work which ought to receive the serious consideration of the Safety Commission now sitting. Is it the business of the court of referees and the umpires not only to accept the manager's interpretation of the Clause, which undoubtedly provides that he must rely upon volunteers, but that they should take a step which compels men to do work, when the most experienced pit man considers that the manager would have been much more humane and wise if he had not forced it upon the men? There is an amazing thing in connection with this decision. There is no reference whatever to suitability for this class of work. In the unemployment insurance legislation there is very clear provision made that suitability should be one of the matters to be; considered in a case of this kind. But throughout the whole of that decision there is not a single reference to the question of suitability, nor is there anything to lead one to believe that the umpire and the court generally took it into consideration.
I want to emphasise a further point to which my hon. Friend drew attention. To have lived in the midst of a community of that kind, with a very fine type of men, and to have seen the havoc and tragedy caused by a decision of this kind, is a very painful experience, and we have waited long and patiently to express ourselves upon something on which we have felt very strongly for some months. When the men were forced back to work and actually went into the seam, every man

that could possibly offer himself for that seam did so after the decision. They said that they would do their best to work it, but, after doing so, the manager himself had to say that the men were unsuitable for it. All that we ask, and all that we have asked, is, not that the umpire should decide in favour of the men, because he has decided the matter, but that he should consider this new evidence, that he should consider the new facts and the complete unsuitability, on the manager's own admission, of the men for this class of work.
Although this is the case of a single colliery, it is so big with meaning from the point of view of safety and of proper working conditions that it would have been well if it could have been discussed earlier and in a fuller House, but the Minister must not overlook the fact that, if nothing is done in this case, not only will the men be forced to work under conditions which are clearly injurious to their health, and under which they ought not to be asked to work, but the Ministry of Labour will be deciding in advance that men ought to be called upon to work under conditions which the Safety Commission is now considering, and upon which there is very grave doubt indeed in the minds of all who are familiar with this work as to whether men ought to be called upon to undertake it.
The Parliamentary Secretary may not have the same powers as the Minister, and I dare say the matter will receive proper consideration in the Department, but I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not going to give us simply an official reply to the effect that it is hopeless and useless to go into the case. I know that the Umpire has said that he would consider whether there is a dispute or not, and that he has made certain suggestions, but, unless this case can be reopened and considered as a whole, and all the new relevant facts brought under a survey, there is no real value in going into some pin-point of the law. My view is that, while the law ought to be observed, in this case not only has the law been, as I think, overridden, but the most patent human facts, which ought to have been used to balance justice with mercy and with human decency, have been altogether overlooked. I hope that the Minister is going


to give us a favourable reply on this matter.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. RITSON: This very harrowing tale ought to affect every Member of the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) has said, anyone looking at the streets which are being cut up now in London will see that the men are standing on something on which they can rest the tools which they are driving, but in this case the man is in a space only 21 inches high, lying on, his side. I would ask any hon. Member to try to visualise what it means, without any vibration at all, to hold a weight of from 21 to 28 lbs., lying on the side and running across the top again and again, before reaching the main part of the coal. We find that there are complaints, not only in the case of very thin seams of this sort, but even in the case of thicker seams, where considerable numbers of men have had to change to this method of operation. I myself came across a man who used to work with me six and a-half years ago, who was known to be one of the best hewers on the North East Coast, but who, when he had to change from the hand pick to this machine, was knocked all to pieces after about three months, although he was a man who would not lose a shift on any consideration if he could crawl to the pit at all. He was working in a five-foot seam. What, therefore, is going to be the result when the seam is only 21 inches thick I Some time ago I myself was sent to examine a seam 23 inches high, and, after creeping along the face, without using a pick at all, I came back absolutely exhausted.
Moreover, there is the question of the noise caused by these machines. A man cannot hear whether there is likely to be a fall of stone, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street has said, they are working in a very narrow space, because the props must be there to keep the roof up, and many a time the machine has to be manipulated by a man lying on his side between props that are only about two feet apart. The interference with hearing is serious, because often the ears are more used than the eyes. Any well informed miner knows that it is not his eyes so much as his ears that he depends upon. Listen-

ing is much more effective for safety than looking, because appearances are so deceptive. And yet we find that men over 40 are placed on this kind of work.
Why did not the manager of this pit get any volunteers? He may have offered them different prices, as is sometimes done, but I am convinced that, if hon. Members knew the men in that area as we know them, they would agree that they are rightly looked up to as being the steadiest set of men in the country. They never wanted to leave there, because their fathers had lived there before them and they were established in their co-operative societies and their chapels and churches. They are not men who are trying to evade work. I am pleased in one sense that there is dust there because, whatever its discomfort, it is not as bad as water, and these men often work lying in an inch or two of water.
The agreement may be this or that. I do not believe in standing always exactly to the letter of the law. Whatever law you make here is open to contradiction and to the application of common sense. When men who have worked 12 or 15 years with a hand pick are thrown on to this method of work, are they not justified in saying it is something for which the Act was never meant? However willing and anxious they may be to be at work, after a man has done two or three hours in that horrible position, lying on his side, is he not justified in saying, "Neither God nor man ever intended me to work under conditions like this"? We are not trying to patch up a case of a sensational kind. We are prepared to take anyone along to the mine at our own expense and give him a test with the machine, and I am convinced that he would not vote against us when he came back. Whatever the Minister may say about the agreement itself and however much he may think he is bound to carry it out, this is a time when the law and legal phraseology ought to give way to the sheer test of experience. When we see a man working in a sewer we pity him, but these men are working all the time in a sewer within a sewer, liable to take cold through working in damp places, with the risk of danger from water and gas. I hope the Minister will demand that a new trial be given to these fellows who are doing their best and find


that their physique will not stand it. I hope he will look at it from a commonsense point of view.

10.18 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): I know that the two hon. Members who opened the discussion feel very keenly on this subject and have done a great deal themselves in the matter, and have been anxious for a very long time to ventilate it in the House. Therefore, I am glad that, now that the opportunity presents itself, they have been afforded plenty of time to put their case. They have put it very forcibly and with a considerable number of details about the particular pit and the particular method of working pneumatic picks. I am not concerned with what the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) called a legal pin-point. I am concerned with the broad and definite statutory position of the Minister himself and of the independent and statutory authorities. The history of the dispute is, in effect, that in September last the Company decided that a certain seam of coal could no longer be worked profitably with hand picks, and that the use of pneumatic picks was called for. The men were asked to work with pneumatic picks and they refused. The company tried several times to persuade them to do the work, saying that unless the seam was worked with the pneumatic pick the colliery would have to close down.

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: The men have never refused to work with pneumatic picks in the seam. An agreement was made at the end of December, 1934, between themselves and the management that volunteers should be called for, and volunteers, young men, descended, but not in sufficient numbers.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: That is perhaps true, but certainly the colliery company, whether certain people volunteered or not, could not get people to work the pit in such a way that it would be profitable. Therefore, the notices were given and the colliery was closed.

Mr. ADAMS: I am sorry to interrupt again, but that is a complete misapprehension. The colliery was not closed. Men continued to work in that seam with the pneumatic pick—30 in number—throughout the whole of the dispute.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: That is the information which I possess, and on the strength of that the men claimed unemployment benefit, but the insurance officer disallowed benefit on the ground that they had lost employment owing to an industrial dispute. The court of referees gave the ease a very long hearing and eventually upheld this particular decision. The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) complained really of the composition of that particular court of referees, but whether it was to his liking or not, the fact remains that there was a fair opportunity for an appeal to the Umpire. The appeal was made in this case to the Deputy-Umpire, and he upheld the decision of the court of referees, and in this case the decision of the Deputy-Umpire is for all purposes equivalent to the decision of the Umpire himself. Since the Deputy-Umpire gave his decision on 1st January of this year the Durham Miners' Association have tried several times to get the Umpire to re-open the question. The hon. Member for Consett and the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) have also tried to persuade him, both by writing directly to him and also by asking the Minister of Labour, to intervene. Questions have also been asked, I think, in all, on four occasions, in Parliament. There are two points upon which the Umpire has been pressed to reconsider his decision. The first is that in giving his decision he should have had regard to the merits of the dispute.

Mr. LAWSON: Our contention is that was no dispute.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I accept that, but taking the line that there was a dispute, he was bound to take some note of the fact that a dispute had taken place. I agree that neither the hon. Member for Consett nor the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street have admitted that there was a dispute. The second ground—and that is the ground which they press to-night—is that there were new facts and that therefore a re-hearing is justified. The new facts which they contend—and I think that I am interpreting them aright —were, first of all, that the company subsequently admitted that they were wrong in asking the men to use pneumatic picks and, secondly, that some of the men were unsuitable for pneumatic pick work.


The deputy-umpire dealt with these two points in a letter which he wrote to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street on 21st April. While I readily recognise that hon. Members opposite have never admitted that there was a dispute, nevertheless, the deputy-umpire said that he had no power to consider the merits of any dispute. That answer is definite and final. As to the second point, the deputy-umpire adheres to the principle laid down in the Act, that once he has given his decision he can only reconsider the matter when new relevant facts come to light which in his opinion would justify a re-hearing. In this case he found that no new facts had come to light. That is tantamount to saying that even if he had known that this particular information was put forward by hon. Members as a new fact—namely, the unsuitability of the men—it would not have altered the decision which he actually gave. He has, therefore, found that no new facts have come to light and has refused to reconsider his decision on those grounds.
All claims for benefit and all questions which arise in connection with such claims are decided by the independent statutory authority, the insurance officer, the court of referees and the umpire. The umpire has a final decision on all questions and, therefore, he is the final authority on the question as to whether he should or should not reconsider one of his decisions. That has been expressly provided for in the Act of 1935. The Minister's position is that he has no legal power to influence or alter the umpire's decision, and although that may seem a very bald explanation to hon. Members opposite, who I know feel keenly on the matter, the fact remains that it is the legal and statutory explanation and I fear is the only one I can give them to-night.

Mr. LAWSON: Under the 1935 Act it has always been part of the general procedure that when an offer of work is considered by the umpire he must also consider the question of the suitability of the work offered. In this case there has been no consideration of suitability. It does not find a place in the award at all. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say something on that point? Is it not one which should be put to the umpire?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The Miners' Association and hon. Members in their correspondence no doubt put that point to the deputy-umpire. Therefore, it is a point which has been considered by the umpire within his discretion, but it must be remembered that the original decision was referred to the court of referees and that on an appeal by the court of referees to the umpire, the umpire upheld the decision. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street admits that this particular point has been put to the umpire already and consequently one can only draw the deduction that the umpire did consider it. I come back to the fact that the umpire has given his decision and that the Minister has no legal power, whatever his views may be, to alter or to influence the umpire's decision.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. BATEY: I agree that the Umpire's decision is final and that the Minister has no power to alter it, but what hon. Members on this; side are asking is that the Minister shall use his influence to get a re-hearing of this case. I think that is not too much to ask, and it is something which has been done by former Ministers of Labour again and again. We believe this is a case in which there ought to be a re-hearing. We hope that although the Minister cannot alter the decision, he will promise to make an effort to get a re-hearing.

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: There is one question I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary. If the verdict of the Umpire was final and a statutory verdict which could not be challenged, why is it that the 50 boys he disallowed were allowed unemployment benefit three week ago?

10.33 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: I happen to be a Member who has been casually listening to this Debate without any knowledge of the technicalities of the matter, and like other Members who are not experts, I have been impressed by the very great difficulties of this case on both sides. It is as though an irresistible force of argument by my hon. Friends on this side had come up against an immovable mass, namely, the Act of Parliament, as rightly represented by the Minister. Yet it is extraordinarily diffi-


cult to avoid the feeling that there must be some way out. Laws are made, of course, to be kept rather than to be broken, but could not the Minister allow some reasonable and friendly individual such as any of the hon. Members who have taken part in the Debate to-night to come to his office or private house with the Deputy Umpire and talk over both sides of the matter with a view to seeing whether some way does not occur to them whereby the difficulty could be overcome? It is an extraordinarily moving case from the point of view of the men and it is an extraordinarily difficult position from the point of view of the Minister, but I hope that before the Minister puts it out of his mind—and it must be difficult to put a grievous case such as this out of his mind—he will see whether, by allowing both parties to talk the matter over in a friendly and non-contentious way, he cannot find some means of doing something.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: I join in the appeal which has been made to the Minister. Speaking without any feeling towards the Minister or anyone who disagrees with me on political and social matters, I cannot help thinking that if the law, operating through the decision of a judge, interfered with the rights of property in a much less degree than this decision interferes with the lives of the men concerned, some way round the difficulty would be found. I have never heard the story as we have heard it to-night of this feature of the miner's work and it only goes to prove how little any of us know of the circumstances who are not directly acquainted with the industry. I have sat here with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) listening to the speeches of my hon. Friends on this subject and we have both been shocked by the state of things described. My hon. and learned Friend knew but I did not know, and I confess my ignorance, that men working under the conditions described—a description which the Minister does not challenge—used these pneumatic picks. I had no conception that such a state of things existed.
I do not believe that if the House were full to-night, the Minister would be allowed to get away with saying what he has said. I know this House and I be-

lieve that had a fuller attendance listened to this story, the mass of Members would have compelled some action by the hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) has made a suggestion which I think the Minister ought to take up promptly, or else find some other way of meeting the case. An Umpire or a Deputy-Umpire is just a human being and may make a mistake. Often when an official makes a mistake it is very hard to convince him that he is wrong. Before the Minister replies, we knew what his answer would be but he also is only a human being and I ask him to remember that he is not there merely to administer the letter of the law. If the law is being operated by the Umpire or the Deputy-Umpire, in what seems to us to be a perfectly inhuman way, I think this House, even though there are only a few of us here to-night, has a right to insist that this is something which must be dealt with as a matter affecting flesh and blood and not as a matter of letters on a piece of parchment. I think the suggestion as to bringing together representatives of the men, with the Minister and the Umpire, ought to be carried out and if that fails it is up to the Minister to take some other action. Umpires are not irremovable and are not infallible.
The Minister may remind his chief that a decision was given in the East End of London a little while ago, which all the authorities on the spot assured me could not be changed. I had the most definite statement that what had been decided could not be undone. I did not make much fuss about it, I wrote a letter to the Minister of Labour, and within a few days that case was re-heard and the previous decision, which had been spoken about very much as the Minister has spoken about this decision, was reversed. I am glad of this chance of paying my tribute to the Minister of Labour for the prompt manner in which that grossly unjust decision was reversed. I am certain that if these facts were put up to the Minister of Labour he would find some way of dealing with the matter. We are all enjoying light here. We all get heat and power, and we have heard to-night how some of it comes to us. The least we can do is to see that those who provide us with these things get some modicum of justice and fairplay. I ask the Minister not to allow himself to be


tied by this red tape business in a case of this kind, but to rise above it and make a supreme endeavour to get the decision re-heard and something effective done to deal with what everyone in the House considers is a disgrace to our administration and to the whole system under which these men are employed.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. F. ANDERSON: I apologise for detaining the House for a. few minutes, but I gave notice to the Parliamentary Secretary as far back as Easter that I would raise the matter—

Mr. LAWSON: Let the Minister reply to the other point.

Mr. ANDERSON: I do not want to stand in the way of any reply that may be made to the previous subject, and I am prepared to give way to any reply the Minister may want to give.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Parliamentary Secretary has replied once, and he can only speak again by the leave of the House.

Mr. GARRO JONES: The House is expecting to hear the Minister again on the question of miners' conditions, and I am sure that the House will readily give its assent to his speaking again on that point. I should be glad to know whether he intends to give a reply on that point, for I do not feel that the last has been said on the matter.

10.44 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I was about to rise and ask for the leave of the House to answer the various points that have been put, but the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Anderson), who has held himself in patience for a long time, got up so promptly that I did not care to stand in his way. If the House will give me leave, I will reply to the various points that have been put. The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) raised the question of boys receiving their unemployment benefit. That is another matter which I do not think the hon. Member will expect me to answer off-hand. I will deal with the specific case of the people who have been refused benefit, the decision in which case has been upheld by the umpire.

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: Included among whom are those boys.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: It is clear that there are some people remaining about whom the hon. Member is not satisfied, and it is to that position that I am directing my remarks. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) asked whether something could not be done by the Minister to influence the decision of the umpire, and that was very forcibly supported by the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). In my final remarks I purposely put in that the Minister had no legal power to influence or to alter an umpire's decision. Of course, anybody can always talk to anybody else with the object of trying to influence him, but I am quite certain that the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley did not really mean to suggest, when he said that had this been a case concerning property instead of miners some means would have been found to get round the position, that Ministers on this side or any side would attempt to influence the judiciary. Certainly, if ever they had attempted to influence the judiciary, they would have got what they deserved, and it is quite possible that the Minister, if he tried to influence the judiciary in this case, would get the same thing.

Mr. LANSBURY: What I really meant was that if necessary a little Bill could be brought in to help us out of the difficulty. I am really suggesting another way round.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The question of amending legislation is, of course, something else, and, anyhow. I do not think the hon. Member for Spennymoor suggested that. It is no real kindness for one to try to gain a little favour by suggesting that one will try to influence somebody when, in point of fact, one has no legal power to influence him. It is quite easy to say one will try to influence somebody, but it is not fair or honest to say it when one has no legal power to do it, because if when we set up judges or statutory authorities we are to try to influence their decision on one point we shall go on to try the same thing in regard to other matters, and there will be no end to the thing. The right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) said that this was a very difficult question. It is precisely because these difficult questions do occur that the law has been framed, and I think rightly


framed, to put certain statutory authorities in an independent position where their decisions cannot be challenged or influenced, or altered legally by the Minister. Therefore, after having listened to these additional points which hon. and right hon. Members opposite have raised, I do not see any reason to depart from the original answer I gave.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: Do I understand that the hon. Member is not going to use— what it is undoubtedly possible for the Minister of Labour to use—his good offices in order to get a re-hearing of this case? The suggestion that the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) made might lead to a possible settlement or a re-hearing. Why is it that Members of this House like the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) and myself cannot meet the Umpire himself? That is a very small thing to ask. It is true that the Deputy-Umpire will meet us to discuss a very microscopic point. That is no use. Why cannot we meet the Umpire, in which case we might find a way to get a proper re-hearing of this case? Has the hon. Gentleman no answer to make to the points put forward by the right hon. Members for North Cornwall and Bow and Bromley?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The question of who meets the deputy-umpire is a question for the deputy-umpire himself.

Mr. LANSBURY: You could ask him. What rubbish it is.

Mr. GARRO JONES: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already spoken in this Debate.

Mr. GARRO JONES: On a point of Order. I rose to ask the Minister whether he proposed to reply to the observations that had been made.

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot have hon. Members rising to ask something and then making a speech.

Mr. GARRO JONES: I submit it is a well established tradition of this House that a Member who rises to ask a question is not thereby disqualified from speaking in the Debate. I did not utter more than two or three sentences and every one was interrogatory.

Mr. SPEAKER: The length of a speech is no criterion of whether it is a speech or not.

Mr. GARRO JONES: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: I am not going to argue with the hon. Member.

Mr. GARRO JONES: With respect, I submit that my speech was of an interrogatory character and that it should not disqualify me from speaking in the Debate. That is a well established tradition, but if you insist on refusing to allow me to speak I shall accept your ruling under protest.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have given a great deal of latitude in this Debate. Several hon. Members have spoken two or three times, and if I were to continue in that way the Debates in this House would become out of order. I do not propose to continue in that way.

UNEMPLOYMENT (TRAINING CENTRE, LINCOLNSHIRE).

10.54 p.m.

Mr. ANDERSON: I do not wish to detain the House long, but the matter I wish to raise is one, I think, of more than ordinary importance. Some time ago I received a complaint from a number of young men in my constituency who had been to a training camp in Lincolnshire—it would not be fair to give the name—and they left the camp, rightly or wrongly, because they felt that the conditions operating at that time were most unsatisfactory. I decided that I would visit the camp unexpectedly so that I might find out what the conditions were. I found that the camp was made up of a number of Army huts, and that these men were having to sleep in the huts. The beds were only three or four inches from the floor, and were composed of a mattress and a number of coloured blankets. A number of the mattresses were in very bad condition, and a number of the mattress covers had not been washed for some considerable time. The blankets were coloured. I understand that drafts of men are sent into the camp from time to time, and that the same blankets are used without being fumigated or washed. That is a very serious matter, especially when you may be dealing with all types of


men coming into the camp from all sorts of different homes, because the blankets are used next to the person of the occupants of the beds. They have no sheet, as we understand it. I could not get any definite proof that the blankets had been fumigated or washed, and something should be done to make perfectly sure that cleanliness is provided for these men.
Where the men had to sleep there were just the ordinary windows that opened at the top, and some of the men actually had to sleep under those windows. A few of the men slept only a yard or two away from the lavatory accommodation. The fires were of a type where there were back draughts from time to time when the windows were open. Wood was used as well as coal, and there were general complaints from the men as to the smoky condition of the fireplaces. There was undoubtedly truth in some of the complaints that the men made. The next thing I noticed, arising out of complaints from the men, was the condition of the pillows, which were in a disgraceful state in some of the huts, to say the least of it. They appeared not to have been washed for a fortnight or three weeks. Some of the pillows were rather clean, others were very dirty. When I asked when the pillows had last been washed, I received the reply that they were washed every week, but I saw with my own eyes that they could not have been washed in every week. In a camp of this description, set up by the Ministry of Labour, there should be some record in the event of complaints being made, so that the responsibility can be placed upon the proper shoulders. I think this point should receive attention from the Minister. I have already spoken to the Parliamentary Secretary about the points which I have mentioned this evening.
Next I went into what they called the cookhouse, and the first thing I noticed was the noise of an army of crickets. I spoke about it, and I was told, "You ought to come here at night." There were two or three men there who, in my view, were not experienced men for a cookhouse and that brings me to the point that the men from my own constituency told me very definitely, that, on one occasion, there were no less than—

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment lapsed, without Question put.

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir A. Lambert Ward.]

Mr. ANDERSON: On one Sunday evening there were no fewer than 14 plates returned, because the men had been given a kind of food that they could not possibly eat. I cannot say how far that is true, nor can the chief of the camp, and I mention that fact because I feel that if complaints are made, the chief of the camp ought to know of them and there ought to be some record kept. There ought to be some kind of a log book, and it should be the responsibility of the men to see that complaints that are made are put in the log book. Those men said that the food from time to time had not been what they could easily consume; at least, it was not like the food they had been receiving at their own homes. In addition to that, these men complained very strongly over the way in which they were treated with regard to weather conditions. I should explain that a number of the men have been accustomed to working down a mine with a very high temperature. These men were put into a motor lorry and driven, I understand, four, five, and six miles, to what is termed a gravel pit, at a time when the weather was very cold indeed. They had no protection except just a cape, and I feel that some consideration should be given to men who have been accustomed to working under very hot conditions, especially when they are taken into the open air in very cold weather. It is a serious matter.
What I saw, I can safely say, warrants me in asking that the Minister should give consideration to the question of appointing some kind of welfare officer for these camps, whose responsibility it should be to go round to the camps to see whether they are being properly conducted or not. This officer should have the opportunity of seeing any log books that are kept, what kinds of complaints are made, and how far they are being remedied. With regard to the hut floors, some of them, in my view, had not been washed for at least a month. Undoubtedly, there were one or two clean floors, but there was a goodly number that had never been


washed at all. In addition, the men say that they were called upon to wash the floors they had to move the beds from one end of the hut to the other and then back again as the washing proceeded, and that caused serious dampness. I found that some of the mattresses were rather damp, arising, I think, from the method adopted in washing the floors. Undoubtedly there are good grounds for saying that some kind of welfare officer should be appointed to visit these camps at his own discretion and to be directly responsible to the Minister, and to no other officer, so that if the Minister received any complaints, he might be in a position to send that welfare officer to investigate them on the spot, without any other officer knowing. The conditions that I saw in this camp, if they are repeated elsewhere, certainly warrant something tangible being done in the direction which I have indicated.

11.5 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The hon. Member has certainly waited as long as the other hon. Members who have preceded him, and he has had to wait a further period. I am very glad that he has had the opportunity of ventilating his views on this subject, as a result of his personal investigations. He has kindly discussed these matters very fully with me in private, which has enabled me to look into the many points he has raised and to answer his questions much better than I could otherwise have done. It is fair to say that the hon. Member is raising these points simply with a desire to improve the efficiency of the camps and not with a desire to make political capital. Therefore, he has considerately withheld the name of the particular camp to which he refers. In all these cases where someone, after investigation, makes certain statements, it is difficult, unless one has seen the actual centre, either to confirm or refute the allegations.
The hon. Member has referred to the mattresses. It is a rule in connection with these centres that every man on joining is supplied with a mattress, which has been treated in a disinfector, and a mattress case, which has been laundered. The same in regard to blankets. Each man on arrival has an issue of blankets, which have been disinfected. These blankets are similarly dealt with in &

disinfector one or twice in the course of the man's stay. With regard to latrines, where there is no water system, and in this case there is none, the latrine and bucket system is adopted, the latrines being erected under the supervision and in accordance with the specifications of His Majesty's Office of Works. The buckets are emptied and cleaned daily, and disinfected.
In regard to the point raised by the hon. Member about having a log book in which records are made, that is a recommendation which he brought to my notice, and I think there is a good deal in it. As regards the crickets, all I can say is that they were not authorised. With regard to the question of miners being driven in lorries, it is true that whether you have worked in a mine or not you do not want to be driven very far in a lorry on a cold day. I have had no complaints about miners or other people being driven in lorries on cold days under hard conditions. With respect to the welfare officer, there is a welfare officer specially allocated to each centre, whose specific task, as his title indicates, is to look after the recreations and the welfare of the men generally at the centre. There is one per centre. There are in addition visits by the ordinary training inspectorate of the Ministry. They go round inspecting, not only instructional centres, but the other various activities of the Ministry throughout the country. These training branch inspectors make comparatively frequent visits to these instructional centres, and in the case of this centre, at the time when the hon. Member first raised the case, there had been six visits by officers of the training branch inspectorate within the last six months, which, for purposes of general supervision, I think is not inadequate.
That is my answer to the various points which the hon. Member has raised, but I should like, before I sit down, to pay a tribute to the way in which the hon. Member has treated this case. We at the Ministry are only too glad for hon. Members and others to pay visits to the instructional centres, and hon. Members may rest assured that there is nothing there that we want to hide. We are only too pleased if hon. Members who take an interest in this work will pay their visits, and we are particularly pleased when hon. Members bring forward


constructive suggestions, as the hon. Member has done to-night—and not merely bring forward constructive suggestions, but get constructive improvements effected. To make a hole in a box may not seem to be a very constructive thing to do, but in point of fact that is what the hon. Member has effected. He has caused a large number of holes to be made in a large number of boxes, and when I tell the House that the boxes are the men's lockers in which their clothes are kept, and that the holes are for ventilation purposes and did not exist before the hon. Member went to the centre, but do exist now—and we have passed the idea round to other instructional centres in the country—it will be seen that there are many constructive suggestions, perhaps simple in nature but very important in effect and very helpful, which those who, like the hon. Member, have had long experience of this sort of thing can make—[An HON. MEMBER: "To keep the crickets out!"] As I have already said, the crickets were not authorised, and I do not propose to deal with them. I hope that these few remarks of mine have indicated the policy of the Ministry with regard to instructional centres, and the general instructions for the arrangements which are carried out.

BRITISH SHIPS (CONSTRUCTION, GERMANY).

11.13 p.m.

Colonel ROPNER: The matter which I desire to raise, very briefly at this late hour, was first brought to my notice by a shipbuilding firm of Selby, which complained some months ago that orders were being placed for trawlers by British firms in Germany. They were naturally extremely perturbed at what they thought was a growing practice, and asked me to take whatever action I thought advisable or necessary to bring the matter to the attention of the Government and, in particular, the President of the Board of Trade. I wrote to the President of the Board of Trade, and he replied that his attention had been drawn to this matter in the previous year, that it had been very carefully examined by the Board of Trade, and that the position was that he feared that he had no power whatsoever to intervene. I had regretfully to pass that information on to my constituents.
I was not a little surprised, therefore, when, in a recent shipping Debate which dealth with entirely other aspects of shipping problems, the President of the Board of Trade appeared to go out of his way to blame industrialists in this country for placing orders in Germany. In spite of the advice which he had given to me that the Government themselves were powerless to intervene, he undoubtedly gave the impression to the House during that Debate that blame could be placed on the shoulders, first, of ship-owners, and, secondly, of other industrialists, for placing orders for trawlers in Germany. During that Debate I pointed out that orders were not being placed by ship-owners and, secondly, I asked the President of the Board of Trade to give his considered opinion as to whether it was possible for industrialists to take action to circumvent the German currency restrictions, which the Government itself had admitted that it was powerless to do. I have not time to go through all the stages of the somewhat prolonged controversy which I had with the President of the Board of Trade, but I want to remind the House of two questions which I have asked in recent days. Both were put down in an attempt to elicit the true facts, and to ascertain whether business firms were really to blame, and, if so, which those firms were, or whether this is a case where only the Government can stop orders being placed in Germany. In reply to both questions, one on 19th May and the other on 26th May, the President of the Board of Trade told me that, in fact, those orders were being placed with Germany to release frozen credits and I think, speaking from memory, again stated that the Government were powerless to intervene. In point of fact, those replies were contradictory to an answer which I received to a supplementary question on 19th May, when the President of the Board of Trade said:
Payment for United Kingdom goods sold to Germany is available in sterling under the Anglo-German Payments Agreement, 1934."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1936; col. 978, Vol. 312.]
I am not, neither is the Parliamentary Secretary, nor any other Member of this House, concerned as to whether the President of the Board of Trade actually contradicted himself or not. What we are concerned with is, why orders are


being placed in Germany. In order to elicit the truth and to assure myself that, either industrialists should be taking action which they are not taking, or that it is the Government's responsibility, and in that case to ask the Government to take the necessary action, I have framed certain questions to which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will reply with his usual courtesy and ability. First of all, are any orders being needlessly placed abroad? If the answer to that question is yes, will the Government give us the names of those firms who are acting in that unpatriotic manner, and will they give us an assurance that they will do all in their power to persuade firms to place orders in the United Kingdom? If the answer is no, if orders are being placed in Germany because of currency restrictions over which industrialists have no control, are those currency restrictions of such a nature that private individuals and firms may reasonably be expected to get over them? In other words, what did the President of the Board of Trade mean when he said we should use our ingenuity to surmount these difficulties? If there are currency restrictions which private firms could be expected to break through, will the Government advise those firms as to how it should be done? But, if it is a case for Government action, will the Government say what it proposes to do in the matter? I have cut my speech shorter than I meant to do. I Was so afraid that I should not leave sufficient time for the Parliamentary Secretary to reply, that I have missed out a great deal of what I wanted to say. Perhaps I have not made myself sufficiently clear to the Parliamentary Secretary, but I repeat that I am sure that what he and every Member of the House wants is that ships should be built in England and that these orders should not go to Germany.

Mr. MATHERS: Why England? Can we not build them in Scotland?

Colonel ROPNER: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I mean the United Kingdom. If industrialists are placing these orders abroad needlessly let us have full publicity of the names of the firms. If it is a question of Government action, let the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the Government can take any action, or let

him admit, if it be true, that the Government cannot take any action. I submit that it is unfair to do what the President of the Board of Trade actually did, namely, cast blame upon industrial firms when the responsibility in fact, in my view, lies with the Government.

Mr. LOGAN: When the hon. and gallant Gentleman raised this question before I intervened with a supplementary question, I thought that he was one of the guilty parties, but I am very pleased to hear of the attitude he has adopted to-night. If the Parliamentary Secretary is going to give names, let us know whether any of these British firms have received the subsidy.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. ELLIS SMITH: I have received a letter written by a man who is in the same position as thousands of others in connection with this matter. He states that the firm by which he was employed quoted for a number of trawlers. The firm made the lowest estimate of any of the shipbuilding firms in this country, and yet they did not obtain the order, which was given out by Unilevers, who are having 15 boats built in Germany. According to the "Daily Telegraph" at present there are 44 boats being built in Germany for British firms in order to enable them to carry fruit to Britain. This is only one part of a very big problem connected with the financial relationship between Britain and Germany for which the Government are responsible.

11.23 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): It is through no fault of mine that this matter has come up at a late hour of the night, and that the Debate has had to be telescoped into a few minutes. I can assure hon. Members that there is unanimity in desiring that any vessel required for United Kingdom purposes should, if possible, be built in the United Kingdom. I think I shall have the assent of the House when I say that if a vessel is not wanted for the United Kingdom purposes by a United Kingdom owner it would be better if it were not built at all. It is the fact that a not inconsiderable amouit of tonnage has been ordered by British industrial concerns from


German yards, and I should have thought the President of the Board of Trade would have commanded universal agreement by his statement in the recent Debate that it was unfortunate that some large industrial concerns on their shipbuilding side should give the impression that they could be satisfied in Germany but not here. I should have thought that everyone would agree with the President of the Board of Trade in his observations. The hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash said that he was not concerned or interested in whether the President of the Board of Trade had or had not given a contradictory answer. As my right hon. Friend's deputy I am most interested and I say that there is no shadow of contradiction in the attitude of my right hon. Friend in this matter. But I agree that at the moment the House is interested in another problem. There are currency restrictions in Germany. There are limits to what British industrialists can or cannot remove from Germany in the form of currency. There are regulations made by the German Government as to what British industrialists may do with deposits, or profits, or other forms of property in Germany. There is nothing in any regulations in Germany or in any agreement with Germany which compels any British industrialist anywhere to order a ship in Germany. Let us have that quite clear. When the hon. and gallant Member asks whether British industrialists are ordering ships in Germany, the answer is, "Yes," quite definitely, but it is a matter of great regret that these industrial concerns on their shipbuilding side should have thought that the best use they could make of funds or balances due to them in Germany was to place orders in German yards. It is regrettable on many grounds. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) hinted at some dark mysterious financial connection between Great

Britain and Germany—moonshine of the first order. That is no contribution to the question we are discussing. Let us keep to currency restrictions. There is an Anglo-German Agreement, Command Paper 2746, and under that agreement certain things are permitted and certain things are not. The hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) has asked whether there is any method by which the British Government can prevent British nationals placing orders for a ship to be built in German yards. The answer is "No." There is no step which the British Government can take to prevent British shipowners ordering vessels, if they so desire, in German yards.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked me to define what the President of the Board of Trade meant when he said that industrialists should exercise ingenuity. One of the things the President had in mind was that if there are commodities other than fully-built ships which are of value, why not have part of the balances which are due to you in a commodity other than a ship. The importation into this country of a ready-made ship from a foreign country does a double harm. It hits one of our basic industries where we are particularly wanting work if a ship is wanted, and if the ship is built as a means of extracting sterling from Germany when a ship is not wanted, it does great harm to shipowners as well as shipbuilders. On all grounds the President of the Board of Trade was right in expressing his regret that industrial concerns thought fit to adopt this practice. I share that regret and I am sure the House shares it. I know of no method under existing law by which it can be prevented.

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.